Look, I don't want to fight last year's battle all over again. Last year most sources, WWF, Globe and Mail, even the extreme right wing WorldNetDaily (and it must really have pained them to report that one billion people participated, they are fully as much anti-environment as you are) and many more reported that one billion people participated. . The argument is over. If you want to believe that nobody participated (or very few people participated), that is your right.
This is a token ,symbolic effort and that is what we are discussing right now.
Really? You don't say. Which anti-environmentalist is going to admit that he is one? But put your money where your mouth is. Tell me even one major environmental initiative, here or in USA that you have supported. Cap and trade? Banning the drilling all over Alaska? Kyoto treaty? What?
So there are more than one billion left wing nuts in the world? That is how many participated last year, and more are expected to participate this year. I think a more likely explanation is that there is nothing wrong with more than a billion human beings, you just happen to be a right wing nut.
So you think North Korea is right on this issue, do you? Talk of unholy alliance. Conservatives agree with North Korea. How charming. Is their dictator your hero now? After all, he stood up to those nasty environmentalists.
Anyway, the fact that you have to scrape the bottom of the barrel, give the example of North Korea tells me that it has been a smashing success so far.
Earth Hour: Lights off, nobody home
By LORRIE GOLSTEIN (external - login to view), QMI Agency
This Saturday, many Canadians will briefly shun electricity.
They’ll sit in the dark for an hour during the fourth annual Earth Hour, the WWF-inspired global “lights out” campaign, symbolically protesting man-made climate change.
Let’s hope those participating, starting at 8:30 p.m., think about this issue seriously, not superficially.
For example, it’s become trendy during Earth Hour to light candles indoors to celebrate the brief absence of electricity.
Problem is, this creates far more indoor air pollution than keeping the lights on.
And if you’re planning a bonfire to show your green credentials, sorry.
Burning wood emits greenhouse gases and air pollution.
In the First World, we’re lucky. We can choose fire over electricity for an hour to show (ineffectively) how “green” we are.
By contrast, 1.5 billion people in the Third World don’t have that luxury.
They don’t have electricity. They’re stuck with fire, fuelled by wood and animal dung, to heat, light and cook in their homes.
As a direct result millions die, every year, decades before their time, choking on indoor air pollution.
Only in the affluent West do we naively romanticize a world without electricity as one of shepherds tending their flocks. Those without electricity know better.
Without electricity, life is nasty, brutal and short. People must stop work when the sun goes down. They can’t preserve food or create sterile medical environments, or any of the other benefits of civilization which prolong life.
Ironically, they are particularly vulnerable to climate change.
A coal-fired electricity plant, however much denounced by First World greens, saves lives in the Third World compared to the alternative, even factoring in smog and pollution, which is why China builds one a week.
How will we face our grandchildren and tell them we did nothing to stop catastrophic death counts caused by climate change, demands today’s smug warmist.
Better ask him how he will face his grandchildren and tell them he campaigned for consigning hundreds of millions to catastrophe by denouncing the very forms of energy by which we powered ourselves out of the Third World, into the First.
No easy answers
In the real world, responsible choices are complicated and hard.
No easy answers can be found in computer models, vainly trying to predict the climate a century from now.
Contrary to what warmists believe, the choice is not a simple one between saving or destroying our planet by burning fossil fuels.
Rather, we must choose wisely in the face of multiple threats confronting humanity.
Understanding begins with realizing there’s no such thing as “good” or “bad” energy.
There’s just energy, each type with advantages and drawbacks.
Coal, oil and natural gas, in descending order, emit pollution and greenhouse gases but supply relatively cheap, reliable, life-giving, life-extending electricity.
Nuclear power emits neither, but costs more and produces radioactive waste.
Wind and solar power are “clean” but so unreliable and expensive at present that the more we prematurely force them on anyone, including ourselves, the more harm we do.
Why? Because this leads to unreliable electricity supply, skyrocketing prices, more poverty, more deaths and less green, since only societies which can feed their people, care about the Earth.
Finally, think, if you’re sitting in the dark, for an hour, about what it would be like to live that way, every hour, as 1.5 billion people do. Think hard.
300,000 homes in Toronto turned their lights off last year. The amount of electricity saved would have lit a city the size of Mississauga for the came period of time. It is NOT a hair prained ides.
Yeah, that's what I said. And that's all you (and most other AGW believers) are willing to do. You won't do more than give lip service to more than that.
Cap and trade is not an environmental initiative, it's a political wealth transfer initiative. Ditto the Kyoto treaty. I don't support the banning of drilling in Alaska (it's not all over, it's a tiny proportion) because I don't see much detrimental effect. If you recall, there were similar concerns over North Slope drilling and pipeline. People said the cariboo herd would be devestated, and instead it had a population explosion. What have I supported? I'm opposed to the discharge of untreated sewage and industrial wastes into lakes and streams, I'm supportive of measures that limit or reduce industrial discharges into the atmosphere, I supported the ellimination of leaded gas. In short, I support pretty much any initiative that actually benefits the environment. However I also recognize the reality that in order for us to live there has to be a certain amount of trade-off. For you to enjoy the energy that makes your life so comfortable and convenient, there will be some environmental impact, no matter where the energy comes from.
I don't know what you consider a major initiative. I've already answered to some extent above. Give me a list and I'll let you know.
Uh, no. Earth hour is a hare-brained idea of hypocritical extreme left-wing nuts. The vast majority of participants aren't left wing nuts, they've just been deluded and are acting from ignorance.
I don't think anybody is capable of leading more than one billion people astray.