I ask you: is unreported crime a symptom of an apathetic society? Are the people not reporting these crimes the same people that can't be bothered to exercise their civic responsibility and vote? Is there a correlation?

Cat food for thought

Therefore, crime is up

only if it goes unreported

Once again read my comments. Challenge what I said but please stop with the partisan antics. Do you agree that without a binding agreement globally that any meaningful reductions in GHGs would take place. Canadians want real action with the economy being destroyed. Dion tried it with the Green Shift and we saw what it got the Liberals. Nobody wants to have their standard of living reduced without any real change in the growth of GHGs

I don't know whether enough is being done or not. However, until we stop talking in abstract ie.number of megatonnes to get back to whatever the goal is and start putting actions that would be required to achieve those goals does anybody know whether it is achievable or not. I suspect if you told Canadians that their gas prices were going to hit $10.00 a litre and that electricity would go to $200 a month you would not get much support for any plan to reduce GHGs.
Dion in his green shift could not say how much GHGs would be reduced despite raising $40 billion over 5 years. Of course not all of that was going to the environment.

So you reply by spouting off talking points without challenging what I said. I would expect that you could counter by points but instead you simply spout the normal partisan silliness.

Do you honestly believe the actions you propose would help reduce GHGs in the global context? In order to get the kind of reductions the envirofascists are advocating there would need to be drastic action i.e. close coal fired plants, significantly increase auto emissions, reduce airline flights, significantly increase electricity rates, gasoline cost, oil costs etc. etc. etc.

Don't be so sensitive. I was talking in general terms. There are those out there who want us to go back to the horse and buggy days. Suggesting the we need to reduce megatonnes of GHGs will result in draconian increases in taxes/costs which I outlined in my previous comments to you. Those are the envirofascists who do not want a balanced approach.

"make the polluters pay"….Holly who do you think ultimately pays when companys are forced to increase their overhead costs to meet new environmental standards? It is you and I, the ordinary citizen. The companies are not benevolent they must pass the costs onto consumers if they are to remain profitable. Hence my prediction that the standard of living of the middle class will decline. Increased cost of goods will result in higher inflation and an increase in interest rates which badly hurt the economy and for what? To send billions of dollars to third world countries so they can improve their environmental standards. How does that help Canadians?
You may be right that we are incurring costs because of changing weather patterns but confiscating money from business and individuals is not going to fix the environment. Unless there is a global agreement because it is a global problem Harper is right to make minor changes but do nothing that harms the economy particularly in these difficult times.
There are always things we can do but to begin reducing the megatonnes that would be required to get to some arbitrary goal would be economic suicide.

Holly…you are blinded by your partisan hatred. I don't know about you but I am getting along quite fine thank you very much. My taxes are lower than when the Libs were in power. You say he is doing less than nothing and then you say his rightwing policies are making the rich richer and the rest of us poorer. How does that jive. He must be doing something if his policies are hurting us. Care to give some real examples of how his rightwing policies are hurting the folks.

Wouldn't it be nice to go back to the good old days.
Well I don't think many Canadians would want that . We live in a world that wants everything it can get and even better if it is for nothing or off the backs of somebody else.
No Canadian will support a government where their living standard is reduced by 20-30% because the government chose to spend billions or send billions to other countries in some wild eyed desire to save the planet from certain death for which there may no answer that we know of today.
If private enterprise want to voluntarily begin changing the way they do things that's their choice but for the government to confiscate through taxes the wealth of business and individuals so that they can try to achieve a goal that no other major emitting country is prepared at this time to embark upon well that is pure nuts and a recipe for rioting in the streets. For God's McGunity couldn't even get his eco tax to stick.

I get it. I understand that you are opposed on principle against imposed solutions – that any solution must only arise from free and voluntary action.

I think, otherwise, that you need to look seriously at the caricature in-extremis arguments you believe oppose your position.

You speak of those who wish to "save the planet from certain death for which there may no answer that we know of today." as if they are irrational.

'Show me the technologies available today that will magically turn us into a green economy'

This is the job of venture capitalists.

I'm frightened that you clearly have all the responses,, otherwise, answers from the side of fear, despair and surrender, all the arguments to decide that doing absolutely nothing is the only course of action.

There'll be no action by anyone until the threat is actually in their face. That's human nature. And every individual, then, of course, of their own free will, will magically create green solutions. Rather its time for the tribe to defend itself as a community. The freeloaders will also be rescued, despite their constant howling that they really don't have to do anything about it.

No, you are not 'fear mongering', you are a victim of fear mongering, fear mongering which has paralyzed you into the position of believing in doing nothing that's not ideologically pure. And your arguments deliberately exclude allowing responsibility for the solution to the very people with the means and ability to provide a solution.