Normally, vacation time gets integrated into the pay. Here, at least, a worker with a full year employment and vacation pay gets paid significantly less per contracted hour than a temp without vacation pay (who works more real hours per contracted hour). The payment per worked hour is mostly the same. In practice (and again, based on what I see here) long paid vacations tend to lower wages significantly, and efficiency tends to remain constant.
Which doesn’t mean you are not right in that there are other (maybe more important) factors at play.
A young man grasping the nettle by the thorns, and sadly many like him are going to need to do so, if they want their kids to have a world worth living in:
YouTube film-maker Finn Harries: my generation must save the planet:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/08/its-up-to-us-to-create-a-better-future-for-the-planet
Wow! seriously big news in terms of climate change (although with no Russia or China involved not as perfect as it could be), and USA is on-board!
G7 leaders agree to phase out fossil fuel use by end of century:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/08/g7-leaders-agree-phase-out-fossil-fuel-use-end-of-century
And perfect timing for that Paris climate change summit coming up. Now what to do between then (end of century) and now, as we need to start doing something asap. Oh and maybe look to sell shares in fossil fuels?
Timex
1964
This means, literally, nothing.
“By the end of the century” is a timestamp so absurdly far into the future that it has literally zero impact on anything.
In the spirit of this agreement, I personally promise to become carbon-neutral by… Let’s say 2065.
CraigM
1966
Unfortunately your desiccated and decaying corpse will release possibly tens of pounds of carbon into the environment, thus your promise is useless.
Nah, he just needs to be cremated by 2064.
It’s just 85 years away, and more importantly the kind of time frame climate scientists have been mentioning if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change (in relation to our CO2 output). It sets a target, and something to aim for in all the various climate change conferences leading upto that time. But most importantly for me it is noise from the USA (and Canada, who’d have thunk that!) that they finally understand this stuff is a big deal and they should be part of the solution rather than the problem, as it is going (is already in terms of extreme weather and the associated costs) to effect everyone, all countries.
Climate change has left US exposed in Arctic, say military experts:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/10/climate-change-has-left-us-exposed-in-arctic-say-military-experts
It was important, said Brigadier general Stephen Cheney, that the military recognised its own contribution as the largest polluter in the world’s second highest polluting country. Weaning the defence force off fossil fuels is an active policy that would solve a security and supply problem as well as bring down carbon emissions.
I think Timex’s point was that it is a completely meaningless commitment on political timescales. 85 years away? Fuck yeah, we can do that. That’ll be worth some votes, probably from the left, right and middle!
Yeah, but it’s an acknowledgement, from the USA and Canada of all nations, that is the main thing, an important move forwards in attempting to deal with our CO2 issue. Keep in mind both the USA and Canada have, until this agreement, always voted in favour of burning fossil fuels, increasing CO2 output etc. I understand you can, politically speaking, wave away 85 years as meaningless, but keep in mind climate change isn’t going away, it’s going to get worse so each new administration is going to see it pushing right to the top of national security concerns. With this acknowledgement it IS a concern now, we are in better shape to enact policies over the next 85 years to stop the end of the world (as we know it).
Timex
1971
Making a commitment which has no requirement imposed on anyone, until LITERALLY EVERY SINGLE PERSON INVOLVED IN ITS SIGNING IS DEAD, is absolutely absurd.
It’s like saying, “We all agree that this is someone else’s problem. Generally, someone who isn’t even alive on the earth today. Good luck, future kid!”
It’s not a meaningless commitment, but it means the exact opposite of what Zak is suggesting – they’re just throwing a worthless bone because it’s political suicide, particularly in Canada (ironically the one country that would most benefit from a warming climate, other than possibly Russia), to ignore such a politically charged issue. Now they can dismiss complaints by highlighting a worthless, non-binding, speculative commitment long in the distant future, to avoid doing anything more tangible immediately.
Like i said climate change (as in man made via CO2 output) is not going away, and the various and wide ranging changes and extreme weather events will get worse. A warming climate does not mean suddenly Canada or Russia will be like Miami so that would be a nice thing, and anyone that knows a bit about the subject will know this. You will see harsher winters, worse storms, worse flooding, worse droughts, more extreme weather events and not to forget the issue with rising tides and the fact most of the world lives on or near the coasts. It will be no Hawaiian shirt holiday that is for sure!
North American scientists call for end to tar sands mining:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/10/tar-sands-mining-ban-scientists
More than 100 leading US and Canadian scientists called for a halt on future mining of the tar sands, saying extraction of the carbon-heavy fuel was incompatible with fighting climate change.
In a letter published on Wednesday, the researchers said tar sands crude should be relegated to a fuel of last resort, because it causes so much more carbon pollution than conventional oil.
The letter, released two days after G7 countries committed to get off fossil fuels by the end of the century, added to growing international pressure on the Canadian government, which has championed the tar sands and is failing to meet its earlier climate goals.
I think that the 2100 commitment will matter. I bet that some super clever engineers and science folk who might otherwise go into fossil fuel extraction will think twice now, for one.
I doubt that will factor into their decision, unless they plan for their career to last longer than 60-70 years.
I think that smart people tend to want to work in a field that has a long term future.
I mean even if it’s a field that will outlive them, because people want to do something meaningful with their lives.
For sure, and who doesn’t want to be the guy or gal who solves clean energy problems? But there’s still going to be big money in the actual energy creation business which, for the foreseeable future at least, is the fossil fuel business, and paying better than competitive salaries will always ensure they get more than their share of big brains.
While I don’t think the 2100 commitment has utility, I do think that if climate change effects lead to some horribly shit over the next couple of decades the 2100 commitment will be irrelevant, as people will be far more influenced by the tangible impact upon them. Right now all the evident negative effects are on the non-fossil fuel side, but presumably that will radically change in the future.
Bonn meeting ends with last-minute compromise on Paris climate text:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/11/sluggish-pace-mars-bonn-negotiations-on-text-for-paris-climate-deal
These things are never easy, but with the evidence now nearly all backing AGW (man made climate change) ever little step in helping reduce global CO2 emissions is worth taking, even if painful in the detail.
Bloody hell, what complete tools we have for a leaders.
This has got to be some weird joke, mere days after the G7 at least managed to agree to something regarding emission reduction targets.
