100 comments posted · 2 followers · following 0
The historical record doesn't have a good enough resolution to see whether or CO2 was a climate driver.
However, simple atmospheric chemistr/physics tells us that if the concentrations go high enough, it will certainly cahnge the energy balance.
I'm pretty sure they are.....(not that I would know)
When it comes down to it, governments through representative democracy come down to the general populace agreeing to a few hundred citizens into a room (whatever the voting system, hell it could be a lottery like the Greeks), and placing enough trust in them to make decision on behalf of everyone else, as long as some form of majority is agreed upon in the room.
There are all sorts of variations, and certinaly PR is different from FPTP.....but when it comes down to the core of the question, it is the same.
In fact..........everyone who has sworn an oath to the english monarch y that eventually become the modern canadian monarchy....has done so in the context of having a monarch whose powers are intertwined since 1215.
Since your commetns re: coalitions show that you could do with some education re: parliaments and monarchies.....why don't you google 1215?
I hear you on keeping up the special needs children field- my Mom's is a Learning Resource Teacher- and it is amazing the volume of literature she reads to keep up with her job.
My generation (20-30 yr olds) are pissed off as all hell about the current political climate. This runs across the political spectrum too- there are a few right wingers who scoff at some elements of environmentalism (but not all elements0...and most youthful right wingers I know act properly ashamed of the current gov't.
I'm just hoping they start voting more!
In terms of Copenhagen, yeah, U.S. Canada are a drag- but the E.U.'s poor record of negotiationg trade agreements with the South but refusing to give up inequitable market subsidies (like the ridonculous ag subsidies) have really soured the trust at the wrold negotiating table.
The leaked alternate proposal that gives developed countries a much higher per capita GHG emission in 2050 (I think its a Danish/U.K./U.S. text) has really made good faith negotians even more unlikely.
Until the developed world backs down from the assumption that they are somehow entitled to keep high emissions (but developing countries have to cap their own emissions much loer), meaningful progress is unlikely. Its a little unfair to place the blame just on Canada/U.S. in this respect- there are polenty of other E.U. countries (Britain!) which aren't yet ready to by into really deep cuts.
In other words, until the rest of the world has an attitude like Sweden's.....the developing countries are unlikely to sign up to a long term deal which is both ineffective (deep cuts like Sweden are doing isn't really on the table at this point) and totally unfair to developing countries.
Some of the most astute observers (Micheal M'gonigle and James Hansen) have pointed out that catastrophic failure at Copenhagen is probably a better outcome than moving towards a crappy agreement.