Greens aren’t always good

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
54
Oshawa
By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN
Global warming and the Kyoto accord are the crack cocaine of trendy causes for opportunistic politicians and chic environmentalists.
Since fighting man-made global warming involves “saving the planet,” or so they tell us, it is the King Kong of all environmental crusades.
Of course, the fact we have been warned in the past by this crowd that life as we know it was about to end over everything from “the population bomb” to “global cooling,” and that we survived, is now ignored.
Too many environmentalists know only one way of talking about these issues — hysterically — which has led to disaster in the past.
In this context, the history of the pesticide DDT is instructive.
DDT was rightly banned in the developed world a generation ago, specifically because of its misuse by modern agri-business in order to increase crop yields.
But it was then wrongly denied to the third world, despite the fact that properly-used, DDT was a life-saver.
As a result, millions of innocent people died or suffered life-altering illnesses due to malaria and other insect-borne diseases.
For the chilling story of what really happened when DDT was banned, which environmentalists have always boasted about as a great victory, read James Lovelock’s latest book, The Revenge of Gaia. In it, this brilliant scientist who is also the grandfather of the modern “green” movement, condemns ignorant, urban environmentalists, whom, he says, hysterically campaigned to ban all DDT use, with catastrophic results.
Ironically, Lovelock invented the electron capture detector, which first enabled the measurement of pesticides and other man-made pollutants in the atmosphere and which led to the birth of modern environmentalism.
Lovelock’s discovery also resulted in the publication in 1962 of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, warning of the dangers of pesticide use — the holy bible of the greens.
But as Lovelock angrily recounts in his book, “the indiscriminate banning of DDT and other chlorinated insecticides was a selfish, ill-informed act driven by affluent radicals in the first world. The inhabitants of tropical countries have paid a high price in death and illness as a result ...”
Lovelock is also an expert on global warming who believes the world is facing imminent catastrophe.
Because of that, he has again broken ranks with the greens, whom he accuses of hysterically campaigning against nuclear power, which, he argues, is mankind’s last, best hope.
Unlike the burning of fossil fuels, nuclear power doesn’t emit greenhouse gases.
As for the wind, solar and tidal power so beloved by the greens, Lovelock says it’s hopelessly naïve to think they’ll be ready in time at the capacities we need.
He compares the greens to clueless passengers flying on an airplane over the Atlantic who, having discovered that it is pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, tell the pilot to turn the engines off, thinking that will solve the problem.
“We cannot turn off our energy-intensive, fossil-fuel-powered civilization without crashing,” Lovelock warns. “We need the soft landing of a powered descent.”
Such straight talk — coming from one of the world’s leading environmentalists and climate change experts — will of course be lost on the braying jackasses in our House of Commons — on all sides — who are playing silly, partisan games on this issue, urged on by naive environmentalists playing fast and loose with reality.
Inevitably, our politicians will screw up Canada’s response to global warming which should lie outside of Kyoto — a farcical, money-sucking disaster — in the strict conservation of fossil fuels here in Canada, burning them as cleanly as possible and looking at every alternative, including nuclear power.
But it will never happen.
Remember, these are the same folks who can’t fix the long and often deadly wait times in our medicare system, despite years of promising to do so.
Now they’re going to “fix” the climate? God help us.

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Goldstein_Lorrie/2007/02/11/pf-3586748.html
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
The flipside is you have all the oil money presenting anyone who will sound like the old anti-cancer scientists of cigarettes. They're deathly afraid of profit loss in the carbon sector. CIBC World Markets is concerned about the impact on the Canadian stock market because 40% of it is tied to this energy issue.

http://money.canoe.ca/News/Sectors/BanksFinance/2007/02/05/3532287-cp.html

Frankly, if politicans would get off their duff and start doing something about promoting clean energy the whole thing would be a non starter. How can a government spend half a trillion on war to in part protect oil and not go all out helping automakers produce an affordable cleaner emission vehicle? It's outrageous. These politicians can complain about Kyoto all they want but in the end they do nothing..period, except send out some empty rhetoric once in a blue moon. People are getting tired of it and the tide is only now starting to change with the public. It's about time.
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
How satisfying it must be to lay the blame for all our problems on ineffectual politicians...not that they're not entirely and completely ineffectual...they are, but where in all this doom-and-gloom rests the responsibility we the citizens, the conditioned-consumers....consuming at any cost regardless of the consequences...where does our responsibility play in this comedic opera of human failure?
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
How satisfying it must be to lay the blame for all our problems on ineffectual politicians...not that they're not entirely and completely ineffectual...they are, but where in all this doom-and-gloom rests the responsibility we the citizens, the conditioned-consumers....consuming at any cost regardless of the consequences...where does our responsibility play in this comedic opera of human failure?

How true, Mike.

Every time somebody starts fawning over Kyoto on these threads, I wonder what kind of car they drive.

Any hybreds out there?

How about NO vehicle, use of public transit only...........and NOT because you are simply poor?

Solar panels installed?

Windmills?

Didn't think so.

BTW, excellent article, AVRO.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
I can assure you the average guy doesn't have a few hundred grand laying around to build windmills, nor does he have the room for it if he did. We have every right to blame the politicans for a disgraceful situation. They have cowered to big money and will dream up every lame excuse for inaction, yet always find a good lie or two for high priced invasions into foreign lands considered "national security" interests. National security is their pc code-words for oil. Where I blame the average person is for being suckered into the perpetual scam.

I work in financial planning and really like how clients are finally starting to seriously talk more about investing in eco-friendlier energy. Sooner or later there will be enough pressure on the excuse makers to do something other than point fingers and provide profits for carbon addicted friends and terrorists.
 

hermanntrude

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Jun 23, 2006
7,267
118
63
45
Newfoundland!
i think we should place a ban on anyone else who denies global warming. Anyone with any reasoning in their heads can see it's happening. the data are exhaustive and everywhere, and anecdotal evidence is amazingly strong
 

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
68
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
I work in financial planning and really like how clients are finally starting to seriously talk more about investing in eco-friendlier energy.
---------------------------------------------------Kreskin-----------------------------------------------------

Nothing helps better A GOOD CAUSE than having the additional benefit of making a profit.

Let's call it the Double-Green Eco-lution !!!

And to Hermanttude, your wish to ban opponents to Global Warming is quite
autocratic. The truth is often enhanced by challenge, by arguing advocates.

Don't be what you accuse the conservatives of doing, namely, limiting liberty
of expression.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
i think we should place a ban on anyone else who denies global warming. Anyone with any reasoning in their heads can see it's happening. the data are exhaustive and everywhere, and anecdotal evidence is amazingly strong

Oh come on..........I know you are just talking loose, without forethought........but this is perfectly the attitude of the left. Kneejerk censorship of all not blessed with the truth.

Think again.

Yeah, it seems the globe is warming, and it seems mankind is having some effect on climate.

Did we completely cause it?

Doubtful, but really irrelevant.

Can we do anything about it?

Even more doubtful.

Climate change is absolutely nothing new. Just in the last 100,000 years, over the existence of homo sapiens,the mean temperature has varied by over 10 degrees celcius. We have become so successful because, as a species, we ADAPT.

So, get used to it.

ADAPT.
 

hermanntrude

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Jun 23, 2006
7,267
118
63
45
Newfoundland!
hehe yeah well i was being exaggeratory (if that's a word). sometimes i over-express myself. Obviously i would never seriously suggest that we ban people for their opinions. I was just suggesting that it seems to indicate such enormous lack of reasoning capability that they wouldn't be able to function in this land of high-IQ
 

hermanntrude

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Jun 23, 2006
7,267
118
63
45
Newfoundland!
colpy that's exactly how i feel. I know there's nothing we can do about it, but i think it's rediculous to pretend it's not us that's doing it. the quantities of CO2 and greenhouse gases we've been pouring out couldn't possibly not cause global warming. the very fact we've released them proves to me that global warming is happening and it was us that caused it. It's true that the planet alters its climate from time to time due to such cycles as precession and so on, but these changes arent quite as fast as the one's we're seeing now, and i don't believe it's very likely to be coincidence anyway
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Are we completely responsible?
I don't think so.

Is there anything we can do to stop it?
If we're only partly responsible, then we can mitigate our own addition to the problem.

We adapt.
Surely, but to put such a high confidence in our own ingenuity and heartiness is not wise. If we are so adaptive, why can we not roll with the punches and unload the gun before we shoot ourselves in the foot? What we're doing is new, and the consequences for future generations remain to be seen.
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
54
Oshawa
Oh come on..........I know you are just talking loose, without forethought........but this is perfectly the attitude of the left. Kneejerk censorship of all not blessed with the truth.

Think again.

Yeah, it seems the globe is warming, and it seems mankind is having some effect on climate.

Did we completely cause it?

Doubtful, but really irrelevant.

Can we do anything about it?

Even more doubtful.

Climate change is absolutely nothing new. Just in the last 100,000 years, over the existence of homo sapiens,the mean temperature has varied by over 10 degrees celcius. We have become so successful because, as a species, we ADAPT.

So, get used to it.

ADAPT.

Natural global warming is a fact but so is mans contribution to it.

The fact is we have excelerated a natural process.

Can we stop it? Nope.

We can prevent it from getting worse.

Even a positive side effect of curbing polution is air we can breathe in urban centers.

Kyoto was a first step of many to come and the only one that engages China since they will surpass the U.S. in GHG production in the comes years. This nonsense of sending billion to China is just that...nonesense.

Besides it seems your Tories have suddenly see the smog and acting....even admiting to a probelm with global warming and throwwing billions at it.
 

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
68
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
but to put such a high confidence in our own ingenuity and heartiness is not wise. If we are so adaptive, why can we not roll with the punches and unload the gun before we shoot ourselves in the foot?
-------------------------------------------Tonington------------------------------------------------

Exactly. Bingo !!

Both sides are actually making that point.

The Left says we ought to push ourselves to go more GREEN now, and so they will make
many various mistakes based on bad science (they assume their science
is always accurate and right) to ruin some companies with injurious
taxes and regulations and ignorant but righteous bureaucratic oversight.

If you're on the receiving end of such POLITICAL LEFT righteousness you'll know what I mean.

And the Right will complacently wait for market forces to take over when people find
profit in Green.

Mistakes will no doubt be made by both sides.

Should we err on the side of ecology ?

That question fatuously assumes that you will err on the side of ecology
and assumes the application of righteous scientific thought will be correct.

A thoughtful balance will be needed.

But I don't see either side doing that.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
It's a rare thing to see true moderation on any issue, blessing good ideas for being good ideas rather than for the political stripe they hail from. Unfortunately this issue is just one of those cases. Really both sides have their truths as I see it. Doing nothing, costly in the long run. Acting hastily without foresight, also costly, though I suspect it would be even more costly to what merit the climate science has.
 

ottawabill

Electoral Member
May 27, 2005
909
8
18
Eastern Ontario
The problem as was put so well in the article is the extreme "sky is falling" approach to the topic of enviromental issues. Alway a big bad oil baron out to stomp on the little guy.

If it's personal health he's called "BIG TOBBACCO" I guess little tobbaco is a nicer guy?? and second hand smoke is made out to kill people how only touch it..refer to a commercial on TV right now.

Then it's SUV drivers..than its trans fat eaters ..Now it's big oil and Global corporations killing us quickly with golbal warming...

As my friend Colpy was getting at above, we like to pick a bad guy..feel helpless then attach him. But really what are most of us interested in doing....turning off air conditioners, stop flying, never go on car trips...only eat fruits and veggies in season or buy then canned, stop eatting beef because of all the Methane....So easy to blame single sources, not so easy to blame yourselves...

I for one do not think we cause long term changes in our climate..we are looking at short term weather and calling it our fault.....what about ever other warming and cooling tread the earth has faced?

I don't for a min think we are doing the right things to our planet, be we are rather egotisical to believe we have that much power!!
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
i think we should place a ban on anyone else who denies global warming. Anyone with any reasoning in their heads can see it's happening. the data are exhaustive and everywhere, and anecdotal evidence is amazingly strong
Also place a ban on fearmongers and politicians who like to develop mountains from molehills.
The evidence says that the globe is warming. The evidence says that we have been a contributor not a cause. The evidence says that GW is cyclical as is global cooling. The evidence is blatant that we've not been very good tenants and we should change that.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
Forget global warming. Even if it had 0% to do with global warming we're still getting polluted to death. The lower Fraser Valley is an absolute mess due to vehicle emissions. Every major city is a mess and getting worse by the minute. Being environmentally responsible isn't just about treehugging. The less junk we pump into us the better off we'll all be. If it helps fight global warming that's icing on the cake. At this point who the heck knows until we actually do something.
 

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
68
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
Forget global warming. Even if it had 0% to do with global warming we're still getting polluted to death. The lower Fraser Valley is an absolute mess due to vehicle emissions. Every major city is a mess and getting worse by the minute. Being environmentally responsible isn't just about treehugging. The less junk we pump into us the better off we'll all be. If it helps fight global warming that's icing on the cake. At this point who the heck knows until we actually do something.
-------------------------------------------------Kreskin----------------------------------------------------------

I think both LEFT and RIGHT can agree.

I love to fish. And the Wyomissing Creek near Reading and Philly in
Pennsylvania in the 60s once had 5000 trout go belly up
from pollution.

The whole community sprang to action. In those days we didn't know anybody's political
stripe. Our creek was dying.

That was a manageable MICRO moment.

MACRO policy ? Kyoto ? That whole bureaucratic lip sync is a sham. Even the LEFT knows its
faults better than us ignorant conservatives.

I think if we create the Demanding Market for it, we'll see a Double Green event,
both profitable and environmentally good.

But pissy ass little bureaucratic righteous Napoleons running around regulating, fining
and taxing to pressure a big MACRO change ???

Doubt it.