There is no global warming. Garth you know that too but you just like being trendy shame on you !
As expected, the report card on Ottawa’s track record on climate change action was dismal today. The Liberals, it said, failed us. Now it is up to Conservatives to start cleaning up a country which emits more greenhouses gas per soul than anywhere else on earth. The torch has been passed. The gauntlet thrown. Will we rise to the challenge?
As I see it, the planet has three devils here – citizen-consumers, industry and government. Citizens and consumers blame the industries that create carbon dioxide emissions and look to government to control them through statute and enforcement. Industries blame consumers for fuelling demand which leads to production and consumption, and expect government to change behaviour through regulation and tax policy. Government makes commitments to action, then spends without results, raises expectations without reason and reassures without principle. In the end, then, elected people must wear this.
As the blog comment above attests, most people coming to this site think it’s political heresy for me to argument for an activist role for government on global warming. They fear the economy will take a hit; the oil sands will be shut down; gas will go to $2 a litre; government will get bigger, more costly and more interventionist; and that somehow this is a left-wing cause unworthy of Tories.
I grant them this: Too many of us in this party have thrown environmentalists overboard, and left the issue of climate change to Jack Layton and his bicycle, Elizabeth May and her bravado, Al Gore and his PowerPoint, and to the hugely prejudiced and self-consumed insufferable people who watch Avi Lewis on Newsworld. Left abandoned, sadly, are millions of middle-class families living in leaky suburban houses and driving minivans who really want to do something positive, and seek direction.
But who speaks for them?
Not the Greens or the Dippers, because public transit, high-density housing. walking and bicycles are not a lifestyle option in my riding of Halton, or in the actual places where most Canadians live. These folks drive cars. They live cars. It’s a car and commuting culture. It’s also a swimming pool-in-the-backyard culture, a single-family-house culture and a consumer goods culture. Who will help these people do the right thing, because they are motivated for it, instead of lecturing, berating and beating on them?
Not the activists. Not the socialists. And, we have just heard, not the Liberals.
Millions of Canadians may be wasteful consumers and reluctant polluters, but they are motivated to change. That does not mean giving up driving or inviting rats to a backyard composter. But it does mean a willingness to recycle, buy green, get a hybrid, shun gas emitters, fill up with biofuels, put a brick in the toilet, sensitize their kids, donate to the WWF and – above all – vote for politicians who give them hope.
Because, as I said above, on this issue only government can lead. And leadership is now lacking. Will we rise to the challenge?
I do not know what is in the Conservative green plan. But if I were asked, I would say the following would be minimum requirements:
- a climate change action plan that audits national carbon dioxide emissions and reports to us with truthfulness.
- A system of permission-based emissions for industry that will contain or reduce growth unless new technologies are used
- Clean water and clean air legislation that mean business
- Endangered species protection and realistic animal rights
- Substantial consumer incentives to change behaviour and buying habits, from hybrid car subsidies to GST rebates on energy-efficient new homes to grants for telecommuting equipment.
- A national nuclear policy
- A climate change action plan budget of at least $2 billion a year, financed in part by the sale of emission permits.
- Public education action plan aimed at changing habits, curbing consumption, diversting waste protecting resources. I will be publishing a Citizen’s Guide of this nature next month.
- An environmental bills of rights, or the inclusion of environment rights in the Charter. The consequences of this alone would be historic.
This will not be easy politically. It will garner protests, risk regional alienation, pit east against west, enrage Bay Street, divide parties and worry economists. Many voices will predict failure and negative consequences. Many others will question the very need for such a plan. There will be endless reasons not to do this, not to gamble, not to stray.
And only one to proceed: It’s the right thing to do.
53 comments ↓
“I do not know what is in the Conservative green plan.”
Garth, it’s a pretty safe bet that the plan will not have anything in that will have naything to do with a carbon tax on the massive amount of carbon emissions coming out of the Alberta oil patch and in particular that Alberta cash cow known as Fort MacMurray.
King Ralph won’t allow it and it would be tantamount to political suicide in the province that is responsible for the Conservatives being in government.
Awe isn’t he cute!!!
Don’t you have any seals with that brilliant red blood on their white fur to show us?
Here is the solution (slightly expensive right now)
http://www.youtube.com/v/ry6w3mRm-FM
Ingenuity – forget it – just tax us to death!
A couple of examples:
On one hand we have AL GORE, who owns several home. “For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself. †One home is situated on land that also has a zinc mine, and that’s where some of his income comes from. Been fined before for contaminating river water too. Full article USA today : http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm
Then on the other hand BUSH built his house on land in Texas, which also includes a protected forest that is a sanctuary for an endangered species of bird, has gutters the recycle rainwater for watering the yard, solar panals, and beneath the house he uses thermal energy from the ground for a heating and air condition system. Full article: Newsweek: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13773993/site/newsweek/
Re your “The earth’s temperature, we heard this week, has not been this high in 12,000 years.”
They continue getting it wrong!!!
Antarctic Snowfall Snafu Derails Climate Models
An improved method of measuring Antarctic snowfall has revealed that previous records showing an increase in precipitation are NOT ACCURATE, even over a half-century. In the August 10 edition of Science magazine, researchers explain that their analysis of ice cores and snow pits revealed that precipitation levels in the Antarctic have in fact remained steady. The upshot of the study is that models assessing climate-change may need to be revised, as they can no longer be deemed accurate.
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20060711004957data_trunc_sys.shtml
NASA isn’t saying what humans did anciently to mitigate “global warming”.
We have been comming out of an Ice Age for what 10-12,000 years. It would only be natural for warming to be the highest in thousands of years. If you look at the big picture as I have seen on some graph’s this is nothing.
There are plenty of leftists, and supporters of big and Bigger government, and doogooders who are willing to tell us how to mitigate it today. Oddly, nor maybe not so oddly, all their plans have a common thread: reduced liberty, increased costs and increased central control over the lives of the average person.
One thing I know: The weather is more the way it is today than it has ever been before.
Yeah Frank that’s brilliant. Let’s shut down the oil patch completely, throw the country into a recession, and get you and about a million others laid off. And the sad part is Toronto alone belches out MANY times more emissions than the entire oil patch. So yeah that sounds like a well thought out solution.
Uhhh, Frank?
I see that the Canadian Government ’sanctioned’ the US plan to arm boats in the Great Lakes back in 2003. Do you want to re-visit your complaint about that?
The work has already been done. The NDP’s Green Agenda.
Garth –
“- An environmental bills of rights, or the inclusion of environment rights in the Charter. The consequences of this alone would be historic.”
Oh man – I could just see all the lawyer vultures just chomping at the bit for their chance to build their financial empires on this one!
While the conservative government hasn’t released their full plan, I do like some of the started items – investment in bio-diesal, public transportation new environment friendly buses, and incentives for public users.
“GST rebates on energy-efficient new homes ‘. This is OK – but, if the new home is 3000+ – how is this environmentally friendly? More materials are used. Energies used to heat and cool a big energy-efficient home is no different than a small 1200 sq foot home, which has been upgraded.
Same goes for energy-efficient SUVs. A smaller vehicle is still more efficient!
Recycling is fine – but how about it’s just a feel good measure. How about reducing consumption and packaging! Every buy a software package? Every buy a pre-packaged kid lunch items?
Regardless of the impediments, and the naysayers, I say full speed ahead with anything initiatives that will slow down the rising temperature curve.
And to who say global warming is a hoax, take a thermometer and place it someplace where it might affect you personally.
that Alberta cash cow known as Fort MacMurray.
Yes Frank, it sure sucks when the cash-cow is not in Ontario I know, but you’ll have to get used to it that’s it.
I don’t remember manufacturing being a particularly green way of making a living and yet I don’t hear the pitch fork mobs wanting to tax Ontario’s manufacturing sector out of business. (Such as it is).
I had never heard of brick in a toilet but googled it and found this:
“Unfortunately, there is a water saving idea that has circulated for years, that says if you put a brick in the toilet tank you use less water per flush. It’s a bad idea and shouldn’t be used, because the bricks can disintegrate and crumbs will wash into the bowl channel and clog the holes. If the channel becomes clogged with brick crumbs, you are probably going to have to replace the toilet bowl. You can achieve the same results using a plastic jug weighted down with marbles or gravel. ”
In my case, I have already had to replace the … stem thing, not sure what it’s called… and the floater level was adjustable, so I just adjusted it a little lower for the same effect.
Hello everyone:
Just wanted to touch base before I head out to my “once a week” show of support to our fighting and fallen heroes. (I won’t go into the flag I have on my front lawn, or the yellow ribbon around the porch posts, or my comments in this blog and others. Nor my thoughts and prayers for them.)
Just wanted to cheer Frank on. He has just volunteered to not drive his car, not take airplanes to travel, to not buy plastic in any form, to not use any man made item. Way to go Frank. I’m behind you all the way. I really am. Have fun walking and growing your own food. Just a few questions though, if you don’t mind.
How are you going to heat your house?
How are you going to get to work?
Will there even be work for you, since the fuel you want to get rid of won’t be available to bring the kids to school?
Raises some interesting questions there Frank. Think you might want to reconsider your statement? Or should we call you King Frank now? Since you have the answer to everything.
Thanks for using my post to start a blog, Garth in a general conservative riding like Halton you don’t have to pretend to care about the enviroment. Look what happened to Ernie Eves when he thought he would appeal to the moderates. You should have the courage to say the truth about global warming its all BS and you won’t lose any votes. Read the senators report on global warming from the senator in Oklahoma that I sent you a couple of days ago.It shows how the media has been beaking off about climate change for a hundred years. No blue boxes here and no yucky green boxes either!
If Taliban Jack is so concerned about “the enviroment” it is time for him to call for an end to the automobile plants in Ontario.
Sure enough CLIMATE CHANGES! The problem is you can’t MAKE IT do what you want!!! Atleast your input into the process is SMALL, or less than that.
http://magic-city-news.com/printer_5888.shtml
There is great question about the validity of the documents promoted by the Global Warming crowd. There is strong, documented evidence to show they care little about sound science and facts and much more about their political agenda.
It was discovered that substantial changes and deletions had been made to the body of the report to make it conform to the Policymakers Summery. Specifically, two key paragraphs written by the scientists were deleted. They said:
1. “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2. “No study to date had positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man-made causes.”
That was not the last time data has been manipulated by the IPCC to fit its political agenda. In 2005, a federal hurricane research scientist named Chris Landsea resigned from the UN-sponsored IPCC climate assessment team because his group’s leader had politicized the process. Landsea said in his resignation letter, “It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity had been due to global warming.” He went onto say, “I personally cannot in good faith contribute to a process that I view as being both motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”
In 2006, the voices of reason are speaking out louder than ever. Professor Bob Carter, a geologist at James Cook University, Queensland, Australia, says the global warming theory is neither environmental or scientific, but rather, “a self-created political fiasco.” Carter explains that “CLIMATE CHANGES OCCUR NATURALLY all the time, partly in predicable cycles and partly in unpredictable cycles.”
Global Warming has become a euphemism for a political agenda. There is Socialism, Capitalism and Global Warmingism.
“I see that the Canadian Government ’sanctioned’ the US plan to arm boats in the Great Lakes back in 2003. Do you want to re-visit your complaint about that?”
That is correct Ed…but it is only under the Harper administration that the US has acted on the agreement and actually armed the boats. And only under the Harper admin that the US has set up firing ranges on the Great Lakes for ‘practice’.
“Yeah Frank that’s brilliant. Let’s shut down the oil patch completely, throw the country into a recession, and get you and about a million others laid off.”
By golly, some of you Alberta cowpokes are just a mite sensitive. Don’t get so excited cause we all know that Harper isn’t going to do anything that will negatively impact the Alberta economy in any way, shape or form.
By the way, does anyone know where pretty Rona is these days. We see her sitting behind the PM during question period, but other than that, she’s invisible. Maybe she’s still memorizing her lines…..
Hey King Frank
How about answering some of Theo’s questions. Even if you aren’t recommending complete shut down of the oil field. I’m not quite sure what you are recommending myself. I believe you are saying that the oil field should pay some kind of tax for their emissions. Is that correct?
Frank, you are just too funny. The Liberals give permission to the US to do something, and when they do, it’s Harper’s fault.
It would seem fairly evident that the when the US ‘asked’ the Liberal government for ‘permission’, then they must have intended to do it at some point.
Having been granted this ‘permission’ by the Liberal government, I can hardly see how you can hold Harper accountable.
But then, you blame Harper when the sun doesn’t shine don’t you?
For those of you who think that the current Global Warming is “natural”, I would highly recommend reading “The Weather Makers.” One interesting observation it made is that, by increasing the CO2 levels in the atmosphere and thus melting the polar ice caps, we have caused CO2 that was trapped in the ice or in soil underneath it to be released, further accellerating the damage. It also gives specific examples of species which have become extinct, or are being severely damaged, by global warming. It doesn’t just say “these animals died”, it explains how they died, and how it ties in to Global Warming.
For those who say that it’s become politicized, what hasn’t? EVERYTHING is politics now.
Frank,
Everytime you venture outside of your classroom, you sound like the village idiot. If you are trying to impress anyone on this blog you are not. Quit pretending to know it all. You have amply demonstrated that you are not an authority on anything, you are just another seagull squawking.
Frank,
Are they using rubber bullets or live ammunition? what a cop out!
Looks like Theo’s going to the overpass soon. Sad to say that we lost another hero today. The family has requested anonymity and I hope that is respected. Maybe Theo will have to forgo his vigil on the bridge, but I think I can say that he won’t mind. I know I don’t. Please take a moment to pay your respects to the soldier that has sacrificed his life. Thank you.
Pete
Lewis – what do you mean: Frank “sounds” like the village idiot. He IS the village idiot. Make that a really isolated village. Anybody remember “Deliverance”. I’m hearing banjos.
“If you are trying to impress anyone on this blog you are not. ”
Then why do you keep responding Lewie. You might not be cheap Lewie, but you are easy….Hee hee…
People, may I remind you that Frank is an internet troll. Don’t feed the troll and he eventually goes away but the more you “give him” the longer he will hang around driving the rest of us crazy!! Just stop responding to his ridiculous posts! Thank you!!
”
The Senate unanimously approved $70 billion more for military operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan Friday as part of a record Pentagon budget.
The bill, now on its way to the White House for President Bush’s signature, totals $448 billion.” (from Yahoo News)
What a colossal waste of money and human life.
It seems the primary schoolyard and political blogs attract the same people. To those that would rather insult each other instead of providing Garth with feedback, comments, etc. I suggest this site.
http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/
Bitch and moan to your hearts content on an endless variety of political topics. Maybe then the comments here can remain on topic.
Garth I am encouraged by your progressive perspective on climate change. I hope, although doubt, that the Conservatives plan will present something similar next week.
A few comments:
1) Garth, I do urge you (if you haven’t already) to take a moment to read the NDP Green Agenda posted above. There you’ll see that the first 4 items under “Green Transportation” are in support of “green cars”. The NDP do acknowledge that green solutions must be sustainable and meet the needs of all Canadians. Make fun all you want, we lefties do have a sense of humour, but make sure facts are correct.
2) A documentary here that I’m sure people here haven’t seen (probably due to it’s alarmist title and lack of full distribution) called “Who Killed the Electric Car?” shows that in 1997 electric cars were proven to be useful in the state of California. 10-15 years, as stated in the YouTube BBC post above, is not necessarily how long we have to wait. Canada can: Be leaders in automotive innovation. Create new jobs. Reduce fuel costs.
3) Adding the Environment to the Human Charter of Rights? Seriously Garth if this were to show up in the Conservative platform I think I might have 3 heart attacks at once from the shock. You guys hate that thing (joke). This is an excellent idea!
Post more, I’m intrigued!
Science tempers fears on climate change
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20332352-601,00.html
THE world’s top climate scientists have cut their worst-case forecast for global warming over the next 100 years.
A draft report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, obtained exclusively by The Weekend Australian, offers a more certain projection of climate change than the body’s forecasts five years ago.
For the first time, scientists are confident enough to project a 3C rise on the average global daily temperature by the end of this century if no action is taken to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
The Draft Fourth Assessment Report says the temperature increase could be contained to 2C by 2100 if greenhouse gas emissions are held at current levels.
In 2001, the scientists predicted temperature rises of between 1.4C and 5.8C on current levels by 2100, but better science has led them to adjust this to a narrower band of between 2C and 4.5C.
The new projections put paid to some of the more alarmist scenarios raised by previous modelling, which have suggested that sea levels could rise by almost 1m over the same period.
The report projects a rise in sea levels by century’s end of between 14cm and 43cm
Back on topic..Garth, I don’t know if you chose the polar bear graphic because you are one of the people who mistakenly believes that we are “decimating” our polar bears due to global warming but if so, please go back and research this a little more.
Here is an excerp from a Canadian polar bear expert’s letter to the editor of the Toronto Star that was published on May 1, 2006:
Climate change is having an effect on the west Hudson population of polar bears, but really, there is no need to panic. Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present.
Dr. Mitchell Taylor, Polar Bear Biologist,
Department of the Environment, Government of Nunavut, Igloolik, Nunavut
He aslo says the Davis Strait is OVERPOPULATED and I have read somewhere (sorry, can’t find link) that they are having such a heck of a time with large amounts of polar bears in Churchill that they are actually considering hunting them!!
This hysteria over global warming has got to stop!! I would encourage folks to read U.S. Senator James Inhofe, CHAIRMAN, SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE Senate floor speech delivered Thursday, September 28, 2006 here’s the link:
http://www.epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264027
Very interesting reading…
Who Killed the Electric Car? or even more important , who killed the NDP? Hey, they are doing a good job of that themselves!
It would be easy to look at the cult-like car enthusiasts who splay their gangly emotions all over the screen in the screechy documentary Who Killed the Electric Car? and think that they’re hardly different from, say, Civil War reenactors or those strangely intent folks who stand at railroad crossings filming trains passing and then swapping the tapes on the Internet. Slightly nuts and definitely annoying. But there’s a story lying behind these people’s tragic love for one particular, doomed auto, and it’s much more important than one’s like or dislike of them. It’s one of those tales of corporate malfeasance and conspiracy which would be, in its scope and Machiavellian devilishness, hard to believe were it not, in the end, quite so plausible.
In his rush to use the EV1 to symbolize the wrongs of the anti-environmental corporate and governmental alliance his film claims to expose, Paine committed a rookie journalist’s sin: he fell in love with his subject. And it was just a car. A sporty little two-seater, it had a range of 120 miles, could be plugged in at night to recharge, and since it didn’t have a combustion engine, needed no gas or oil and hardly anything in the way of spare parts like filters.
Ahh yes, Who Killed the Electric Car?, which opens with a mock-funeral for the titular GM-produced EV-1 staged by the A-list of insufferable character actors (Ed Begley Jr., Peter Horton) to mourn the recall of their electric cars. Title cards tick off the possible suspects in the demise of the technology (OIL! BIG AUTO! CONSUMERS!)–it’s like Murder on the Orient Express: everyone’s guilty. But the victim isn’t the car so much as it’s the environment. Sound difficult to champion? It is. The film is well-meaning but so desperate to entertain that it begins to grate like the left-wing message has begun to grate on even the left wing. Smug and self-satisfied!
Range of 120 miles!!! I agree with GM, it would be no good to me.
By the way the GM Hy-Wire http://www.youtube.com/v/ry6w3mRm-FM is mine, so hands off! Will anybody lend me the needed funds?
As the blog comment above attests, most people coming to this site think it’s political heresy for me to argument for an activist role for government on global warming. … Because, as I said above, on this issue only government can lead. And leadership is now lacking. … Many voices will predict failure and negative consequences. Many others will question the very need for such a plan. There will be endless reasons not to do this, not to gamble, not to stray. And only one to proceed: It’s the right thing to do.
Garth, many insightful comments there. I find the type of remarks you refer to, often in the cavalier “Don’t Worry, Be Happy” [© ® ™ 1988 - Bobby McFerrin] vein, equally as vexatious as ones from the opposite end of the spectrum that would have us stop everything with no regard for the consequences.
When I read entries from younger posters here that decry Baby Boomers who, to those observers, appear to be only looking out for their own economic interests with token regard for those who come after, I see a parallel when it comes to environmental issues. While I live a fairly modest yet satisfying life and tend to be an optimist / realist with firm belief in ingenuity, I honestly worry that my offspring will not enjoy the same quality of life, all because of a collective failure in foresight and planning, stewardship and conservation from preceding generations.
A while ago I heard a rather pessimistic interview with author James Howard Kunstler in reference to what could happen once we get beyond global “Peak Oil”, the point at which oil consumption exceeds production. I haven’t had an opportunity to read his book, but the scenarios he described were grim and made me think of things I take for granted and had never considered. A simple example: daily I consume several cups of coffee, year round I enjoy nice salads of romaine lettuce garnished with avocado, fruits such grapes, grapefruits, papaya with a liberal squeeze of lemon, South African Mandarin oranges at Christmas, crisp Chilean apples and nectarines in the springtime (during the southern hemisphere’s equivalent to our Fall harvest), … etc. All of those ingredients make journeys of 1000’s of kilometres to reach my table. Can we expect to continue ad infinitum with such long supply chains, the 3000-mile-Caesar-salad as Kunstler aptly called it? Another example: we are able to travel almost anywhere with ease because of the conveniently-located infrastructure build around the extremely portable gasoline energy supply that fires our vehicles. When we pass the peak and those finite supplies decline, what will take their place? Will it be as convenient and make use of the same (retrofitted) infrastructure? Will use of that fuel to heat our homes subjugate the ability to be highly mobile? How will that in turn affect how we work, what we create, what we consume?
Several have noted here in the past that there is an overall net loss in energy to produce alternative fuels like ethanol. I’ve had high hopes for hydrogen, especially given its innocuous aqueous by-product and potential to reuse existing service station infrastructure, but to be effective it needs an energy-positive process to create it – NOTE: Honda just announced a new fuel cell production vehicle for 2008 a few days ago ( http://cars.ign.com/articles/735/735917p1.html [P.S. Jerry, thanks for that You-Tube link, highly entertaining but its seems Japan has yet again beat Detroit out of the production blocks.] ) – but Kunstler suggests that even that may be in question. If not hydrogen, then I don’t know what would replace gasoline. How much of a serious research effort is being made to find a replacement, something I think government should be investing in now?
This link from American Scientist gives a synopsis of Mr. Kunstler’s book and epitomizes what I heard him discussing. I’ve reproduced excerpts below that illustrate the dilemma as he sees it:
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/BookReviewTypeDetail/assetid/45924;jsessionid=baahLChHm_25m0
Matt,
It is interesting that some scientists have found a close correlation between global temperature fluctuations and sun spot activity.
Others have developed a hypothesis that an accelerated melting of the Greenland ice cap could put a cover of fresh low density water over the adjacent northern ocean thereby shutting down the gulf stream, as the present salty dense cold water would not be able to drop down to bottom of the ocean, which presently allows the warm gulf waters to extend to the north. If true, then global warming could shut down the N. Atlantic circulation and precipitate the next ice age.
Still others are now studying Atlantic ocean currents to detect changes that may be taking place related to possible changes in water circulation brought about by temperature and ice melting. If this is proven to be occuring, regardless of the reason for it happening, it may reach a tipping point and precipitate the next ice age which some speculate could occur as early as 2030.
Global climate change always has been evolving and always will. Only until we are certain of what will happen in terms of world climate change and that we can have a definite impact on changing it, should we be attempting to change that which we are a long way from understanding. It needs much more study. It is those scientists which are not jumping on the climate change bandwagon, who are truly researching the issue who will provide solutions if there are any, not politicians and well- doers such as the Al Gores, Arnold Swartzenagors, Richard Bransons, David Suzuki, David Anderson and a thousand more of them who have contributed nothing in terms of real research. What will this bunch have to say IF we find that the vast majority of global temperature change is caused by sun spot activity, and that North Atlantic ocean currents are actually changing and that we are moving towards the start of another ice age in the foreseeable future. They will become as quiet as the other fearmongers were on Jan 2nd 2001 when the world came to the realization that the sky did not fall from Y2K.
Jerry – thanks for the link… I’ll wait until they roll a few more off the line, I can’t quite afford $5 million dollars now
“Anybody remember “Deliveranceâ€. I’m hearing banjos.”
Hey Richard, can you squeal like a pig?
….driving the rest of us crazy!!”
Hey Charley, bet it’s not a long drive.
DUBE
Jerry, thanks for that You-Tube link, highly entertaining but its seems Japan has yet again beat Detroit out of the production blocks.] ) – but Kunstler suggests that even that may be in question. If not hydrogen, then I don’t know what would replace gasoline. How much of a serious research effort is being made to find a replacement,
***something I think government should be investing in now?*** OUCH!!!
LESS GOVERNMENT IS NEEDED NOT MORE GOVERNMENT
It should come as no surprise that there is no shortage of environmentalist exaggeration and half-truth that also “misleads people about climate change”. After all, professional environmentalists and climate scientists might lose their jobs if the global warming problem was to ever go away.
As a result, everyone in the global warming debate is biased. People can expect that corporations will emphasize research that supports their opinions and goals, while environmental lobbying groups will do the same. Everyone has financial motives, and government-funded scientists and environmentalists acting as if they own the moral high ground is an increasingly tiresome pose.
ALONG WITH MY THOUGHT THAT LESS GOVERNMENT IS NEEDED NOT MORE GOVERNMENT
What do you think of the following?
Harper should annouce that every dollar spent on Kyoto will be deducted from ’social programs’ so that Canadian taxpayers and consumers are not hosed again.
He should offer the LPC and NDP a deal: You want ‘Kyoto’, let your social progams fund it.
Stephen Harper, former economist, now politician Question Period Tuesday September 26 2006:
I DON’T THINK ANYBODY CAN ARGUE WITH BETTER VALUE FOR MONEY SPENT!!!
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1&DocId=2352187#OOB-1653909
Jack Layton: “Does the Prime Minister believe that with these record surpluses, the ordinary Canadians who benefit from these programs are merely fat to be trimmed?”
Stephen Harper: “Mr. Speaker, despite all the hot air down there, the reality is that the new spending that this government has introduced in all of those areas far dwarfs any reductions the government made yesterday.”
Harper supports Kyoto, and he supports an ever growing welfare state.
IS THIS TRUE IN YOUR OPINION???
Festus Frank. Festus Frank. Hmmmmmmm. I think we need to initiate the Troll alert. Don’t feed the Trolls.
Garth
I agree that government should be playing a much larger role in this issue. However, I would say that if we are serious as canadians, the biggest role is ours, the general public. Instead of us whining that the government needs to do more or do this or that, I put forward the idea (not mine by the way) we, the people who use and abuse actually put up or shut up. As I’m sure you are very aware Garth, most politicians want to be re-elected. It is a very fine line they walk towards that end. Gotta keep big business happy, because ultimately, they are the ones that infuence the outcome of elections the most. Gotta keep the voters happy because they are the ones actually doing the voting. It is virtually impossible for politicians to keep both sectors happy all the time. For us, the consumer, to expect anything else is unrealistic. So I suggest we the consumer do the right thing. We all know what it is but we are reluctant to cut back on our comforts and luxuries. (Yes I include myself in that group.)Even a little. I don’t know why, but that is the way it is. As the saying goes, if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself.
So I put forward the question to all of us. What are you willing to do to actually do something about global warming?
Hmmmmm gotta think about that one myself.
Catherine had some good ideas in Big Smoke, Pt.1
Lewis: You make some good points, but it can’t be denied that, since the Industrial Revolution, we have put a lot more CO2 in to the atmosphere, and that is a greenhouse gas, which in turn increases the ambient temperature of the planet. What the effects of that increase are can be debated, but not the increase itself.
Incidentally, Y2K didn’t cause the sky to fall only because a lot of programmers spent several years fixing the critical systems.
What can I, personally, do to help global warming – excellent question Pete!
We are planning to sell our Ford Windstar minivan and buy a Honda Civic. I work mostly from home and only drive to the office once or twice a week. We just bought a new fridge/stove and we made sure they were rated among the most “energy efficient”. We try to buy whole foods and make stuff “from scratch” instead of buying things that are in packages/boxes/cans etc.. We recycle, of course and we try to remember to use as little energy as possible (turn lights off, don’t leave computer on all day, etc..) and we use electric heat at home.
I look forward to hearing more ideas of additional things we could be doing..
It’s not that I don’t think we should continue doing “green” things (both personally and on a governmental level), I just feel the media has blown this whole global warming thing way out of proportion and even if we heeded the dire predictions and took their advice on everything, it would make a negligible difference at post (probably not even that!!). Now Al Gore is on about how smoking cigarettes contributes to global warming – how many of you smokers out there will quit smoking to “help save the planet”??! The louder it all gets, the more ridiculous….
I look forward to Minister Ambrose’s unveiling of her Green Plan on Thursday!!
OOPS!! The first line should read:
What can I do to help PREVENT/REDUCE global warming….
(NOT a freudian slip, honest!!)
*** OUCH!!! LESS GOVERNMENT IS NEEDED NOT MORE GOVERNMENT
Jerry, the type of research I’m suggesting is one carried out through the National Research Council, universities, and the like, if not pure government bodies then at least pseudo-government.
In my ideal world, we would be moving to a hydrogen-based economy for heating and transportation fuel, with petroleum reserved more for those products that need the carbon component in their molecule chain, like plastics. We would be doing so now and not wait until we’re already on the downward slope of petroleum supply. This would address at least four big problems: the amount of carbon entering the atmosphere (given that water is the by-product of burning hydrogen), a near-endless supply of fuel (our oceans), our dependence by the Middle East and being ‘held for ransom’ accordingly (well maybe not Canada’s right now, but I am speaking of a more collective “weâ€), and an ability to have a fuel that is almost equally as portable and convenient as gasoline that would make large use of existing distribution infrastructure. This guaranteed supply would likely ease a lot of potential flashpoints and social tensions in the world. Also, I’m not sure what the quality of the water byproduct is, but if produced in enough quantity, say in industrial settings, it might serve as a partial feedstock for processes that require water rather than taking it from our surface or ground waters.
The big problem with hydrogen, at least from what I can remember from high-school electrolysis experiments, is that it takes more energy to separate from water than what it yields. Again, in my ideal world, to overcome that need for more excess energy, the system used for extracting the hydrogen would make use of natural renewable sources, like the wind-farm that supplies the Calgary C-Train. Once during a driving tour across the western states, whilst heading from the Grand Canyon to Los Angeles, I encountered this big burning “torch†in the California desert that used mirrors to concentrate sunlight on cylinder at the top of a tower, which in turn was eventually converted to electricity (I don’t recall if it was through solar cells or turbines). If such devices could be harnessed in hydrogen-separation processes, placed along ocean front areas with lots of sunlight, with raw resources in the form of sea water, say the coast of Southern California, Mexico, the Mediterranean, Africa, … the Middle East, it could convert localized static-energy, in the form of sunlight, into mobile energy in the form of hydrogen fuel, and maybe even provide an economy where one is lacking.
Anyway, pie-in-the-sky stuff right now. You are man of many links; perhaps you can show me one where industry is doing such research and making headway, independent of government assistance.
CO2 and Matt etc.
Something that the media almost never addresses are the holes in the theory that C02 has been the driving force in global warming. Alarmists fail to adequately explain why temperatures began warming at the end of the Little Ice Age in about 1850, long before man-made CO2 emissions could have impacted the climate. Then about 1940, just as man-made CO2 emissions rose sharply, the temperatures began a decline that lasted until the 1970’s, prompting the media and many scientists to fear a coming ice age. Let me repeat, temperatures got colder after C02 emissions exploded. If C02 is the driving force of global climate change, why do so many in the media ignore the many skeptical scientists who cite these rather obvious inconvenient truths?
Huge quantities of CO2 and methane rise up from rotting Siberian and Canadian wet tundra plus rice paddies and swamps (wetlands). CO2 emitted by petroleum combustion is MEANINGLESSLY SMALL in comparison to any of them.
Here is what contributes more CO2 to the atmosphere:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/natural_hazards_v2.php3?img_id=11799
And that’s just one of many going on in the world at any given time.
There are plenty more here:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/Archive/natural_hazards_archive.php3?topic=fire
Climate change is real – is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists. After all we have to keep Global Warmingism going don’t we?
“What can I, personally, do to help global warming – excellent question Pete!”
Not a bad thing to do Charley. I just heard on CTV that the grape crop (wine business) in the Okanagan is the best in many years. WHY? The weather has been hotter this year!
That darn Global Warming!!!
Garth
When speaking of the environment there is no doubt that the science is there to prove that global warming is happening. The details are in the extent of the damage and how that is going to affect the planet and population. We laugh at the notion that people in past times argued about the earth being flat or not! People will look back at this time and do the same.
We think that if we make adjustments to how we are living that our world will end … This is not true! The thing is our current economic system did not create itself … Humans created it and we can create something else that will meet our needs.
Government will press for Change that will allow evolution not revolution in the economy. The only issue is to the pace of that evolution … That is for the people and government to work on together.
DUBE
“like the wind-farm that supplies the Calgary C-Train.”
“You are man of many links; perhaps you can show me one where industry is doing such research and making headway, independent of government assistance.”
TransAlta Energy Corporation http://www.visionquestwind.com/index.asp I believe on your power bill you are asked if you want to contribute extra to try to make this viable. Part of Wind Power Production Incentive program so they may get money from YOU and unfortunately me as well??? Even if you live in Halton. Actually they get subsidized for the first ten years.
Maybe you want to invest even more of your hard earned money Dube!!!
Anyway you are the one worried about this, not me!
I WILL PASS AS I AM A FRIEND OF THE BAT’S AND THE THREATENED SPIECES INCLUDING THE BURROWING OWL YOU GUY,S ARE KILLING WITH THESE WIND FARMS!
Investing in Green Energy® electricity and its related products is investing in a cleaner environment for future generations. Whether you’re a concerned citizen or a corporation with a conscience, renewable energy investments are something everyone can feel good about, and there are several ways to go about it.
As a business or electricity supplier you can purchase
~ Green Energy® electricity or Green Energy® Tags
As a private residence you can chose to support wind power by
purchasing Green Energy power through one of Vision Quest’s resellers
~ The Pembina Institute or ENMAX Energy’s Greenmax Program.
To find out how you can invest in our parent company, TransAlta Corporation, Canada’s largest publicly traded independent power producer, click here.
Vision Quest is a division of TransAlta Energy Corporation, part of TransAlta Corporation, Canada’s largest non-regulated electrical generation company. Vision Quest one of Canada’s largest producers of wind energy.
The Alberta Government is once again trading away Alberta’s grassland heritage for private gain without public input. Alberta Wilderness Association (AWA) recently learned that Soderglen Ranches Ltd. public land leases are being converted to deeded lands to accommodate a wind farm. AWA has said for many years that environmentally significant public land should not be sold. Its cultural and ecological value exists for the benefit of all Albertans.
August 8, 2006 RONA AMBROSE served with legal notice: I WONDER WHAT GARTH THINKS AS HIS SIERRA CLUB IS INVOLVED IN SUING HER.
Tiny species could cause big headache for Feds NR060808.pdf 41KB
I am not much of a fan of The sierra club and those types of organzations. PETA being one of the dunbest.
I haven’t answered your question. I am sure there are some, although we (Canadians) are far down the socialist path, but there has to be some enterprising business not at the trough, surely. But right now there are football games on TV…..Later.
I’ve read in the newspaper that the Environment minister is talking tough about what the new green plan will include. I hope Ambroise really knocks this one out of the park. As part of the third of Conservative voters who has the Greens as second choice, I’d say if the Conservatives get tough on the environment issue, I’d be happy as a clam.
[The big problem with hydrogen, at least from what I can remember from high-school electrolysis experiments, is that it takes more energy to separate from water than what it yields. Again, in my ideal world, to overcome that need for more excess energy, the system used for extracting the hydrogen would make use of natural renewable sources.]
Which is exactly what a company is Saskatoon is attempting, using solar collectors to provide the energy source for the conversion. Check out
http://www.shec-labs.com/
I think the commercialization is a few years away, but it’s an awesome approach.
Matt,
You say ” Incidentally, Y2K didn’t cause the sky to fall only because a lot of programmers spent several years fixing the critical systems.”
I beg to differ with you Matt. The programmers may have ensured that nothing catastrophic would occur, however the truth of the matter is that nothing catostrophic did occur or would of occured even if the programmers had done nothing. This point is clearly evidenced by the fact that of the millions of computers that were not “fixed” by the programmers, nothing of significance happened to them. Billions of dollars were spent on the supposed problem which was virtually all a total waste of money.It was the equivalent of a big hoax. A few programmers, fraud artists,alarmists and fear mongers no doubt did well. After Jan 1st, 2000 the story came to a very abrupt ending. The same will happen to global warming if and when it is found to be being caused by sun spot fluctuations. Then some pseudo scientist will come along who believes that we can influence the suns activities. So far we have spent 5 billion on “climate cchange”, essentially all of which has been a complete waste, all it accomplished was the optics that the government (Martin’s Liberals)were engaged and working on the solution when in fact all they were doing was wasting money, a liberal tradition.
I hear that someone is already predicting catastrophies with Y3K.
I can’t believe you people continue to debate whether greenhouse gas emissions warm the climate. Here’s the simple logic for all of you knuckle draggers out there – human activities cause the release of greenhouse gases, greenhouse gases cause atmospheric warming, thus human activities cause global warming.
Tax the polluters (Ontarians and Albertans). Embrace the market and bring it into equilibrium by addressing the negative externalities. Come on you socialists, get with the program.