Mulroney 'greenest' in long line of green Tories
- Thread starter Jay
- Start date
Too bad the present Government of Canada has terminated fifteen environment programs, is planning on cutting the funding to Environment Canada by up to eighty percent (-80%)¹, is obviously opposed to the Kyoto Protocol, and hasn't presented an alternative.
:!: Revision : (1) Corrected a formatting error.
:!: Revision : (1) Corrected a formatting error.
Jay, I don't quite agree with what you're saying here. The Prime Minister has been bombarded with the open letter from scientists and experts, regarding how important it is that the Government take action at once to prevent the devastating effects of climate change from becoming an unavoidable reality. And yet our Government is prepared to give Environment Canada one-fifth of its current funding! With no environment strategy, and cutting fifteen programs dedicated to climate change, in particular?
zoofer said:
Nobody can argue the effect the human imprint has on the environment and to the degree that effect now has in the short future timeframe. I’ve heard somewhere that Ontario alone could lose 2 thirds of it’s forest due to changes in climate. This on just Ontario alone. Every province will have some issue to deal with.
As for cycles, an example of a cycle is the flooding of Manitoba, but climate change might even be contributing to erratic weather that is causing such extremes to occur more frequently. Even then, with the idea that Manitoba flooding is a cycle, if they did not prepare for it some time ago in the past with the floodway, the city of Winnipeg itself would be underwater.
When the cost of the floodway was proposed the guy with the idea to build it was baulked at. Those with a short term mentality laughed at the idea and the expense of it. However, the cost now would have been huge with regards to damage to the city. Even to build such a floodway today would have been much more expensive.
You may also remember it was only a short while ago when North Dakota’s Grand Forks was under river waters. Winnipeg alternatively with the same flood waters suffered no such damage.
Climate change is real and is resulting from the human imprint on the planet. Scientists are documenting this change as real. Maintaining ecological balance is going to be vital to our survival. If we don’t do anything about it now, the cost will be much more in both money and lives, and if you think bearing a hardship for climate change is a problem now, it will be nothing compared to the hardship in the future for our inaction.
RE: Mulroney 'greenest' i
I was talking to someone from England and now they have these mini twisters in their countryside. They aren’t causing much damage at this time but before they would only get those little dust whirlwinds. Now, they have these things which are like little tornados.
My guess is that the first big thing with climate change will be potential loss in crops. The world does have to feed itself. For us, food will get much more expensive and our luxuries will be tempered by a higher cost of living. Third world countries however will have populations going into starvation.
I’m sure there is a report that outlines these risks. I think the US Pentagon did a study that went into such risks and the worst case scenarios were pretty bad.
I was talking to someone from England and now they have these mini twisters in their countryside. They aren’t causing much damage at this time but before they would only get those little dust whirlwinds. Now, they have these things which are like little tornados.
My guess is that the first big thing with climate change will be potential loss in crops. The world does have to feed itself. For us, food will get much more expensive and our luxuries will be tempered by a higher cost of living. Third world countries however will have populations going into starvation.
I’m sure there is a report that outlines these risks. I think the US Pentagon did a study that went into such risks and the worst case scenarios were pretty bad.
Re: RE: Mulroney 'greenest' i
Ok, did a quick search. Here it is. I don't know what the future will hold with climate change, but I say it's going to be rough if we don't take stronger steps to curb what is turning into a downward spiral with climate change.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html
Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us
Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York
Sunday February 22, 2004
The Observer
Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..
A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.
The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.
http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=26231
This public report, prepared by GBN for the Department of Defense, has been the subject of several news stories. Fortune magazine excerpted the report in its Feb. 9, 2004, issue ("The Pentagon's Weather Nightmare," by David Stipp). The actual report, titled "An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security," was written by Peter Schwartz (GBN chairman) and Doug Randall (co-head of GBN's consulting practice) and is attached here in its PDF version. Contrary to some recent media coverage, the report was not secret, suppressed, or predictive.
http://www.climate.org/topics/climate/pentagon.shtml
Pentagon study suggests potentially catastrophic consequences of climate change
Commissioned by highly respected Defense Department planner Andrew Marshall, a Pentagon study raised the possibility that global warming could prove a greater risk to the world than terrorism. Among the potential consequences, if climate change occurs abruptly or at the high end of scenario projections, might be catastrophic droughts, famines and riots. The study's principal authors were Peter Schwartz, former head of planning for Shell Oil, and Doug Randall of the Global Business Network, a California think tank.
Ok, did a quick search. Here it is. I don't know what the future will hold with climate change, but I say it's going to be rough if we don't take stronger steps to curb what is turning into a downward spiral with climate change.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html
Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us
Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York
Sunday February 22, 2004
The Observer
Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..
A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.
The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.
http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=26231
This public report, prepared by GBN for the Department of Defense, has been the subject of several news stories. Fortune magazine excerpted the report in its Feb. 9, 2004, issue ("The Pentagon's Weather Nightmare," by David Stipp). The actual report, titled "An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security," was written by Peter Schwartz (GBN chairman) and Doug Randall (co-head of GBN's consulting practice) and is attached here in its PDF version. Contrary to some recent media coverage, the report was not secret, suppressed, or predictive.
http://www.climate.org/topics/climate/pentagon.shtml
Pentagon study suggests potentially catastrophic consequences of climate change
Commissioned by highly respected Defense Department planner Andrew Marshall, a Pentagon study raised the possibility that global warming could prove a greater risk to the world than terrorism. Among the potential consequences, if climate change occurs abruptly or at the high end of scenario projections, might be catastrophic droughts, famines and riots. The study's principal authors were Peter Schwartz, former head of planning for Shell Oil, and Doug Randall of the Global Business Network, a California think tank.
zoofer said:
Absolutely, Zoofer, and I wish people would quit this misconception between pollution and green house gases. They are two separate issues, and one does not lead to the other. Greenhouse gases, as far as I understand it, are comprised of too much CO2 in the atmosphere, which has nothing to do with pollution.
Of course we should stop pollution, and to that end, Alberta is a producer of clean natural gas, and now has developed clean burning coal. I find it very ironic that the Liberal version of Kyoto would punish the oil industry in Alberta, while doing nothing to punish the auto makers of Ontario. The polluter is the vehicle, not the fuel, and again, has nothing to do with Kyoto, yet all the Liberal politicos kept talking about was pollution as a Kyoto problem.
RE: Mulroney 'greenest' i
I don’t get what point you are really trying to make. Pollution and greenhouse gas are not mutually exclusive. Greenhouse gas is a product of pollution. I mean, sure you can pollute without releasing greenhouse gas, but what point are we trying to make? There are a lot of ways we are damaging the planet and we are all going to pay for it in some way. Maybe pay for it in a very harsh way.
You can also try to politicize the issues surrounding climate change, but climate change will not discriminate with who is in power when the consequences of climate change really hit home. It’s not going to discriminate between provinces either. Climate change is going to affect everyone to some degree, whether they are a communist, a capitalist, right, left, center, etc.
So regardless of who is running the show, it will be up to current governments to take necessary actions as to their responsibility for all our future.
Finger pointing gets pretty meaningless at this point if current policies are still inadequate to deal with such an impending danger. The government as of now is the Harper government. He then bears the responibility to try to enact or support policies which will best address the situation.
As for Kyoto, it is a program for countries as a first step in addressing the reduction of greenhouse gases and a way of trying to organize to achieve a target in such reduction. I think you are trying to make up some sort of localized political ownership to the process which is a global effort.
I don’t get what point you are really trying to make. Pollution and greenhouse gas are not mutually exclusive. Greenhouse gas is a product of pollution. I mean, sure you can pollute without releasing greenhouse gas, but what point are we trying to make? There are a lot of ways we are damaging the planet and we are all going to pay for it in some way. Maybe pay for it in a very harsh way.
You can also try to politicize the issues surrounding climate change, but climate change will not discriminate with who is in power when the consequences of climate change really hit home. It’s not going to discriminate between provinces either. Climate change is going to affect everyone to some degree, whether they are a communist, a capitalist, right, left, center, etc.
So regardless of who is running the show, it will be up to current governments to take necessary actions as to their responsibility for all our future.
Finger pointing gets pretty meaningless at this point if current policies are still inadequate to deal with such an impending danger. The government as of now is the Harper government. He then bears the responibility to try to enact or support policies which will best address the situation.
As for Kyoto, it is a program for countries as a first step in addressing the reduction of greenhouse gases and a way of trying to organize to achieve a target in such reduction. I think you are trying to make up some sort of localized political ownership to the process which is a global effort.
Jay said:
It’s not about things simply getting 2 degrees warmer. 2 degrees is just a way of defining an overall average. We are talking about a base temperature average which means hitting new temperature norms which will vary within a higher range. The highs within a new range could have serious implications. This is aside from concerns toward progressive warming. First it’s 2 degrees, then it’s a little more than 2 degrees. I didn’t read anywhere that 2 degrees was a cap value to global warming if greenhouse gases continue to rise.
You also do realize, I'm not one to make statements I can't verify unless I'm strictly giving subjective opinion.
http://www.climatehotmap.org/impacts/greatlakes.html
http://www.gcrio.org/gwcc/booklet2.html
Given the heavy pressure from development on the hundreds of miles of delicate lakeshore and ecosystems, the Great Lakes region is particularly susceptible to the effects of rapid global warming. According to the scenarios used in the National Assessment, scientists expect average temperatures in the Upper Great Lakes region to warm by 2 to 4C, while precipitation could increase by 25 % by the end of the 21st century. Despite this significant increase in precipitation, lake water levels are expected to fall by 1.5 to 8 feet by 2100 because of the higher temperatures, with serious implications for ecosystems and the economy. Although not necessarily due to global warming, the recent series of unusually warm years is already to blame for a drop of 3.5 feet in water levels for Lakes Huron, Michigan and Erie since 1997, and record low levels are expected later this summer. These lake-level declines from record high levels in the 1980s have caused concern among commercial shippers, hydroelectric companies, and recreational boaters. Fewer cold air outbreaks and less lake-effect snow (especially around Lake Erie and Lake Ontario) may decrease annual snowfall significantly, a trend that has already been observed in the past few years.
Although uncertainties remain, the research conducted through the National Assessment is an important first step in helping policymakers and residents understand the possible impacts of global warming on their region. Identifying risks specific to the people and ecosystems of the Great Lakes will help them make better informed decisions about how to address the problem.
Key Findings (abridged)
Wetlands and Coastal Ecosystems
Climate change poses a significant threat to the remaining wetlands in the Great Lakes region, from the prairie potholes of Minnesota to the coastal marshes of northern Lake Huron. These delicate ecosystems are critical to declining migratory bird populations, providing food, breeding grounds, and resting stops along major migration routes. For example, Minnesota and Wisconsin may lose important duck habitat in prairie potholes. Already, the region has lost up to 60 % of its prairie pothole wetlands, and under dryer climate conditions, the size and number of those that remain could be further reduced. Additionally, at least 32 of the 36 species of fish in the Great Lakes are dependent on coastal wetlands for successful reproduction. Declines in water levels caused by climate change will reduce fishes access to the emergent vegetation of coastal marshes, which provide breeding habitat, shelter for young fish, and plenty of food in the form of vegetation and invertebrates. With only 50 % of original wetlands remaining in the Great Lakes region, and much of these areas already stressed by pollution and development, it is imperative that Great Lakes authorities take meaningful steps to preserve wetlands ecosystems under the compounding effects of climate change.
Forest Ecosystems and Bird Habitat
Forest ecosystems have contributed greatly to the prosperity and quality of life in the region as well as to cleaning its air and water, and the reduction of soil erosion. Their diversity has also provided important habitat to wildlife. If global warming occurs rather rapidly, both plants and animals are likely to face difficult challenges in adapting to changing conditions. Several species of trees may no longer be able to grow in the Great Lakes region as summers become too warm, including economically important species such as quaking aspen, yellow birch, jack pine, red pine and white pine. Both broadleaf and conifer forests are in danger of declining by as much as 50 to 70 % in the Upper Great Lakes region, although uncertainties in altered precipitation patterns make exact predictions impossible at this time. Other trees such as black walnut and black cherry may eventually migrate northward into the region. Although productivity may ultimately increase after an initial dieback phenomenon, current mixed forest communities could give way to grasslands, savanna, or hardwood forests consisting of more oak, elm, ash and pines. This will have serious implications for species dependent on very specific habitats, including the endangered Kirtlands warbler, which breeds in the sandy jack pine barrens of Michigan.
