Good question. I have no idea. Between a couple of places I've worked that actually brought in someone to vaccinate everyone who wanted it and the few people I know, I would have guessed at least 70%.
I guess this is why we can't use personal experience is to judge things.
I don't get it. Sure, nothing is perfect, so people will fall through the cracks, but less than 20%? For a vaccination that costs nothing more than taking the time to find and utilize a place that offers it? That's just madness.
"Consistent with Article 13.24, the Parties shall cooperate bilaterally and in international forums to address matters of mutual interest, as appropriate, to … promote carbon pricing and measures to mitigate carbon leakage risks," the agreement states.
Poilievre's insistence that this is meant to "impose" a carbon tax on Ukrainians is also hard to square with the fact that Ukraine has had a carbon tax since 2011.
" ... cooperate bilaterally ... [emphasis added]
He's not cranked out of shape because something might be imposed on Ukraine, but because it risks imposing something on Canada. But he can't very well come out and say that in relation to a war-torn country, so he has no choice but to lie.
We seem doomed to always follow the process without skipping steps. The first child welfare organizations were modeled on the existing animal welfare organizations.
On my worst days, I think that the real reason certain people want to ban recording what goes on in animal agriculture is because legally requiring the humane treatment of animals tends to lead to legally requiring the humane treatment of humans.
I respectfully disagree that I've fallen for anything. I came by my views over several decades of discussion, debate, and activism. That doesn't say anything about whether I'm right or wrong in my characterization of the problem as being one of human nature rather than a technical or even sociological problem.
I have never stopped taking what action I can take to minimize my personal contribution to the problem. Nor have I ever tried to sway others away from their own action. I may be misguided in my efforts, but I now focus on getting people to see that we must recognize our human cognitive failures and fight to overcome them. I may have the wrong approach in that, but I don't see anyone else doing anything to address that foundational problem.
I reduced my focus on nuclear power, passive heating and cooling, public transit, and walkable cities nearly two decades ago when I realized that the problem is not lack of solutions, but lack of action. And not just action, but action at all scales from the local to the global, by everyone from individuals to companies large and small to all levels of government in all countries.
This is not a debate about publicly funded healthcare housing, neither of which has a deadline. This has a deadline. We can argue over the precise nature and timing of the deadline, but we cannot have any reasonable disagreement over its existence and its consequences. Unless and until we have accepted the need for action, we will not -- cannot! -- act, at least not effectively. So that is where the battle must be joined, in convincing people of the need to overcome their natures so they see that action is both necessary and possible.
My contention, and I'll be very, very happy to be proven wrong, is that the time remaining to forestall disaster has run out without yet having convinced anyone of the need to act. That, of course, does not mean we should do anything other than redouble our efforts in that direction in the hopes of avoiding ecological and civilizational collapse. But that doesn't change my claim that our only battle is our battle against our nature.
I don't know how to phrase your missing 4th option, but it is an option and it is missing.
There was a time when potential financial benefits were secondary to the need for shelter. Over time, the loss of pensions and other factors forced people to put more emphasis on the financial returns. Then institutional investors found ways to turn housing into an asset class. That accelerated the growing perception that housing was about returns on investment, with shelter as a beneficial side effect. Now, the "shelter" component of housing is only just starting to become part of the discourse again, but is still mostly considered a side effect of housing as a financial investment.
Shelter will continue to be a problem until we go back to a system where housing is about shelter and prices rise at about the same rate as inflation (or slower, due to increased productivity!).
That is not my reading of the history. My understanding is that Manitoba came into existence as a result of peaceful Metis activism and was to be a Metis "homeland." The violence only started when the federal government realized that maybe wealth and power was flowing to the "wrong" people and took action to "correct" that, culminating in the Battle of Batoche, where Metis took their last stand against land theft and further displacement.
I'm an old white guy, but was raised to view the Metis and their leaders as heroes in the struggle against Ottawa's exercise of unjust control over the Prairie Provinces. I'm about as far from a Western Separatist as can be, but I firmly believe that Western Separatism is a continuation of that struggle, despite now excluding those who fought and died and, yes, killed during the earliest days of that struggle.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: This is why I think we cannot deal with climate change in any meaningful way. Not "will not," "cannot."
We have the technologies and some of them, like nuclear power, have been available for more than 50 years. Others, like residential construction for passive heating and cooling, have been developed and proven at least 40 years ago, and still aren't found anywhere in our building codes. "But wait," you say, "we didn't know about climate change 40 or 50 years ago!" Well, maybe you, personally, didn't know about it. Maybe you missed the articles in the back pages of the newspaper. Maybe you weren't even born yet. Maybe your governments, like mine, have never seen fit to ensure that this stuff was incorporated into the curriculum. But I was reading about "the greenhouse effect" and likely consequences and possible timelines c. 1970. You can be sure that scientists were sharing what they knew with the economists and governments of the day.
We have the techniques and some of them, like high density housing and public transit and walkable cities, have not just been available for 100 years, but have actively been dismantled after having been part of the urban lifestyle for decades. "But wait," you say, "we didn't know about climate change 100 years ago!" Well, quite apart from the work being done 150 years ago that raised the possibility, we did have experience with fossil fuel pollution and it didn't take a genius to figure out that limiting the demand for fossil fuels would be just a generally good idea.
So what's stopping us? The same thing that has always stopped us: A combination of territorialism, greed, fear of change, and the inability to process large numbers, small growth over long periods of time, and compounding effects. These are all innate human weaknesses that seem to be our evolutionary heritage.
I disagree.
I'm not a doomer because the problem is technically intractable (more on that later). Nor because I can't do enough to change our trajectory. Nor because we (society as a whole, including corporations and governments) can't do anything to change our trajectory.
Nope, I'm a doomer because dealing with this problem is a social problem with its foundations in evolution. It has not and never had been a technical problem. We have the technologies and have had many of them for 50 or even 100 years.
There was more than enough evidence by 1970 to support hypotheses going back to the 1800s; more than enough to justify global initiatives. Yet, by c. 1980, that evidence was being not just studiously ignored, but treated as nonsense. And that programme of dismissal didn't just continue, but grew ever more elaborate and normalized.
There were good ideas and technologies available in 1970 that, had they been acted upon and deployed would likely have greatly mitigated and possibly solved the problem. At the very least, we would have been on the right path 50 years ago instead of arguing about the best way to deal with what our inaction has turned into a crisis.
Now, at 67, I'm starting to think that the problem might be technically intractable for the simple reason that we've waited too long. But even if that is completely wrong, it's clear to me that it is not just socially intractable, but impossible.
While individual humans may have the necessary foresight and behaviour, collectively, as a species, we simply don't have what it takes to see and understand and act when there are compounding effects. Whether it's savings, debts, or ecological and environmental impact, our poor little brains cannot reliably deal with anything other than pure linearity as applied to small numbers and tightly constrained systems. Nor, it seems, are we capable of reliably deferring to those who have managed to acquire the necessary skills.
In the same ways that the very nature of a nonhuman species can lead to population collapse or extinction under changing circumstances, so are we doomed to play out a similar script. I just didn't anticipate that we'd hit the wall while there were still just 4 digits in our year or that we'd be at risk of succumbing to something so simple.
On the one hand, I think you need to put trigger warnings on that shit.
On the other, part of me is pissed that, at 67, I might not live long enough to say "I fucking told you so!" to all the idiots around me and have it mean anything.
Thanks for the book recommendation!
It's fairly expensive, but it turns out that there are several copies of both first and second edition available through my local library.
Contact the regulatory body
I doubt it. One of the guiding principles behind tenant rights is "reasonable" behaviour. I fail to see how any interpretation of "reasonable" would allow the prohibition of the nearly universal practice of hanging things on walls.
My experience as a renter was that the landlord couldn't even claim damages for the inevitable holes that result from properly hung pictures and even small shelves (but don't push it!).
When we had a lot of pictures to hang in a small area, we hung a light board on the wall, mounted at the studs, then hung pictures on that.