Nope! The hyper focus on Mitigation will not breed the innovation we need to adapt to the consequences of climate change. We could reduce oil by 50% and it wouldn't change a thing, its too late. Adaption is the only model at this point and technologies like AI, robotics, nano tech, etc will help us achieve a reduction in the consequence and/or remove the consequence entirely. A healthy economy with cheap energy will be the foundation.

Refreshing, thanks!

Well it's clear after 20 years of this HS nothing can be done about climate change unless every last GD person "believes". I mean everyone has to believe or simply nothing can be done; and they need more money to study our impending doom!!
I believe climate change is real but this Climate Change Regime is full of shit!

Your right! It would have been smarter to vote for the party/candidate that was *proud* to be endorsed by Dick Cheney, the architect of the 2003 Iraq war.

Canada is locked in a Chinese Finger Trap. Canada's real estate market has been used for decades as a washing machine for the massive drug money made by the international organized crime networks infecting the country. The problem Canada faces is that once their law enforcement makes a deeper effort to go after these organizations and their money laundering, the top real estate markets will likely fall and Canada banks will see very large scale foreclosures, in the millions, likely leading to a crash in Canada's banking system. It is that serious. Canada could be up for sale at that point. A 51st state? Lets hope something can be done without bringing the country to its knees.

This is more about the value of the US dollar as a global reserve currency today than it is about the environment or climate change; petrodollar.
The US dollar is being devalued and decoupling it from oil at this juncture would be suicide. When your ship is sinking you do not worry about the impact the carpet fibers will have on the marine life.

I am trying to understand how you have inescapably concluded that 14800 murder victims would be alive today if the murderers did not have a gun. Did the gun make the perpetrators intentionally commit homicide? Would not having a gun prevent them from intentional homicide? If so how?

It was handgun crime not specifically deaths. Handgun crime 'up' despite ban BBC Monday, 16 July, 2001, 04:50 GMT 05:50 UK "A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned. " Gun crime soars by 35% BBC Sunday, 12 January, 2003, 11:02 GMT "Gun crime has risen by 35% in a year, new Home Office figures show. "

The United Kingdom's gun ban saw a sharp rise in gun deaths in the years after. I don't have a graph cause i am too lazy to search for one but I remember the BBC reporting years later that the government intentionally hid those statistics from the general public. It was a scandal. I believe it was the government's policy of increasing police resources that got the numbers down prior to the ban. Although, have you seen the recent statistics in homicides by knives in England recently?

"Yet, there are no school flamings." Not yet anyway, but that does not mean without the availability of firearms a mass murderer would give up. It is much more complex than that . The firearm does not create the grievances that motivate the mass murderer. "Then Europe should have just as many school murders as America, just using different weapons. Can you explain why they don't?" Not a logical conclusion but a good question to ask. I would say its complex and probably beyond the scope of a Slashdot thread to explain fully. But conventional media and the hysteria it invokes during these and other violent events, mixed with the internet and the ability of social media to isolate, bully, and provoke Individuals. Add cultural differences, the US has a more diverse, violent culture that is what almost seems to be exploited and encouraged by the government and media. Poor parenting. Dare I say the excessive media attention attention towards firearms the media and government focus on during these events.There could be many more factors involved in why Europe has less school shootings but it is beyond the scope of my morning coffee to discuss. I do think these questions should be discussed though, it is more productive than the excessive focus on the tools these mass murderers use.

I am suggesting that without the availability of guns there are other ways for mass murderers to achieve their objective and that the excessive focus on guns, or the weapons used, has very little value in preventing future events.

IED's and other improvised weapons can easily be created with ingredients from a hardware store and a gas station. The information is easily and freely available when someone has the will. As a matter of fact anyone in the United States can buy a flamethrower, it is not federally regulated. There are even websites that sell it. You can even build one yourself there are enough videos out there. Napalm, and alot worse, is trivial to make from publicly, easily available ingredients. If someone is motivated lack of firearms will not stop them, there are many alternatives out there.

Timothy McVeigh didn't use a gun for his mass murder that killed 168 people and injured 680. There are far worse weapons that can be used for mass casualties. The excessive focus on the tool used by mass murderers will do nothing to resolve this problem.

You're interpretation of the Second Amendment is wholly wrong. It's a good thing too, otherwise your Slashdot posts could be arbitrarily deleted by the government because the internet wasn't invented when First Amendment was created.

Maybe you should start by reading the Wikipedia article on the Second Amendment.

I think nanorobotics with AI could be a solution in the future. Plausible feasibility, now get on it!