Executive Member
Posts: 9,531 
July 10th, 2008, 12:47 PM
Quoting Zzarchov
Nonsense! if all you have are population numbers, you can use those to make an estimate of emissions. This is not rocket science but we have enough figures to make a fairly accurate estimate of emissions based on population numbers.
Once national sovereignty is based on the number of people they are allowed to have and not the amount of land they control, then its useful.
Right now any use it has is purely propaganda.
Right now any use it has is purely propaganda.
House Member
Posts: 3,306
July 10th, 2008, 09:19 PM
And what good does emission based on populations do you?
If you have more or less people, can the region of the planet you have sovereignty over handle more or less pollution?
Add to that its bunk. Every country has more accurante numbers about the amount of land they control than the number of people they have at any given moment.
Quoting #juan
Nonsense! if all you have are population numbers, you can use those to make an estimate of emissions. This is not rocket science but we have enough figures to make a fairly accurate estimate of emissions based on population numbers.
And what good does emission based on populations do you?
If you have more or less people, can the region of the planet you have sovereignty over handle more or less pollution?
Add to that its bunk. Every country has more accurante numbers about the amount of land they control than the number of people they have at any given moment.
July 10th, 2008, 11:21 PM
Quoting Zzarchov
The only thing it really says is how intensive your society is polluting. You could look at two countries with similar GDP and population but have one country with more emissions per capita based on the type of climate, or on the efficiencies/inefficiencies of their society.
And what good does emission based on populations do you?
House Member
Posts: 3,306
July 11th, 2008, 07:36 AM
Soveriegnty has always been based on territory not population.
If the earths biosphere can handle X pollution, then the country with 5% of the planet can use 5% of the pollution. How many people are in that country is irrelevant.
Quoting Tonington
Again though? What does that matter?
The only thing it really says is how intensive your society is polluting. You could look at two countries with similar GDP and population but have one country with more emissions per capita based on the type of climate, or on the efficiencies/inefficiencies of their society.
Soveriegnty has always been based on territory not population.
If the earths biosphere can handle X pollution, then the country with 5% of the planet can use 5% of the pollution. How many people are in that country is irrelevant.
July 11th, 2008, 09:13 PM
I didn't say it mattered, I only answered a question.
But since you ask, global emissions aren't a sovereign matter. It matters very little where they actually come from. I expect that some day, per capita or how intensive a country pollutes will matter. It's only one lawsuit away.
The geographical area that emissions come from matters not, it only matters how much.
I didn't say it mattered, I only answered a question.
But since you ask, global emissions aren't a sovereign matter. It matters very little where they actually come from. I expect that some day, per capita or how intensive a country pollutes will matter. It's only one lawsuit away.
The geographical area that emissions come from matters not, it only matters how much.
Council Member
Posts: 1,720
Location: BC
Location: BC
July 12th, 2008, 01:26 AM
yeah, I responded to another post here by accident. I couldn't delete my post so I edited and made it unintelligible.
Quoting Tonington
lmao...
Wow. That's the most coherent string of consonants and vowels from you yet. I genuinely believe you to be distorted when trying to string together those things with meaning and separated by spaces. You know, words?
yeah, I responded to another post here by accident. I couldn't delete my post so I edited and made it unintelligible.
House Member
Posts: 3,306
July 12th, 2008, 07:22 AM
How much would imply there is a limit to how much the planet can handle correct?
So the big question is, how do you divide up that maximum amount between different people in different nations?
Will you give it to nations based upon what percentage of the world population they have.
Will you give it to nations based upon what percentage of the world they have?
Everything in human history up to this point has been based on the latter between nations. Its also a better solution. The problem will only get better with a stable population. Making governments get a bigger share of the pie by having a large populace and worse off if they use population control will only compound the problem.
Everyone drew their lines in the sand long ago, and the rules still apply.
Quoting Tonington
I didn't say it mattered, I only answered a question.
But since you ask, global emissions aren't a sovereign matter. It matters very little where they actually come from. I expect that some day, per capita or how intensive a country pollutes will matter. It's only one lawsuit away.
The geographical area that emissions come from matters not, it only matters how much.
But since you ask, global emissions aren't a sovereign matter. It matters very little where they actually come from. I expect that some day, per capita or how intensive a country pollutes will matter. It's only one lawsuit away.
The geographical area that emissions come from matters not, it only matters how much.
How much would imply there is a limit to how much the planet can handle correct?
So the big question is, how do you divide up that maximum amount between different people in different nations?
Will you give it to nations based upon what percentage of the world population they have.
Will you give it to nations based upon what percentage of the world they have?
Everything in human history up to this point has been based on the latter between nations. Its also a better solution. The problem will only get better with a stable population. Making governments get a bigger share of the pie by having a large populace and worse off if they use population control will only compound the problem.
Everyone drew their lines in the sand long ago, and the rules still apply.
July 12th, 2008, 07:18 PM
After all, it's not land mass that is the problem, it's what human activities are doing. So it makes more sense in the end to make allotments based on humans, wouldn't you say?
If you want to make it on a per area basis, well then you have to account for what type of area each country is and will be and at the same time economics. Peat bog, estuaries, tropical forest, boreal forest, desert, ice field, grasslands, etc. If it's per capita, then you consider the economics, like developed versus developing. Where any country is placed in that category will determine the time frame involved.
Quoting Zzarchov
It's not an either or question or answer. The current frame works (or rather doesn't work) by selecting a base level, and then making cuts to emissions relative to that base level. If we were to project into the future, the cuts are supposed to account for the excess, at least the excess that was determined in the last round of negotiations.
How much would imply there is a limit to how much the planet can handle correct?
So the big question is, how do you divide up that maximum amount between different people in different nations?
Will you give it to nations based upon what percentage of the world population they have.
Will you give it to nations based upon what percentage of the world they have?
So the big question is, how do you divide up that maximum amount between different people in different nations?
Will you give it to nations based upon what percentage of the world population they have.
Will you give it to nations based upon what percentage of the world they have?
After all, it's not land mass that is the problem, it's what human activities are doing. So it makes more sense in the end to make allotments based on humans, wouldn't you say?
If you want to make it on a per area basis, well then you have to account for what type of area each country is and will be and at the same time economics. Peat bog, estuaries, tropical forest, boreal forest, desert, ice field, grasslands, etc. If it's per capita, then you consider the economics, like developed versus developing. Where any country is placed in that category will determine the time frame involved.
House Member
Posts: 4,554
Location: Minnesota: Gopher State
Location: Minnesota: Gopher State
July 12th, 2008, 10:39 PM
Global warming cannot be a fraud - even the Pope knows it is true:
http://wire.jacksonville.com/pstorie...03108460.shtml
but the denials serve as a good distraction from Bush's war ...
Global warming cannot be a fraud - even the Pope knows it is true:
http://wire.jacksonville.com/pstorie...03108460.shtml
but the denials serve as a good distraction from Bush's war ...
Council Member
Posts: 1,790
July 14th, 2008, 06:15 AM
Hot and bothered over climate
By Peter Worthington
If you are confused about the Kyoto Accord, climate change, greenhouse gases, the deleterious effects of carbon dioxide (CO), and assorted environmental threats as outlined in Al Gore's Academy Award and Nobel Prize winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, I have a solution.
Go on the Internet to www.friendsofscience.org, the University of Calgary-based non-profit volunteer organization of atmospheric and other scientists who challenge politically inspired concepts that the planet is threatened by climate change due to man's irresponsible misuse of the environment.
The website is replete with data that differs considerably from the Chicken Little "Sky is Falling!" convictions of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), comprised of 2,500 scientists (of differing disciplines) whose assessments are sorted and selected by another UN body which blends them into a politically acceptable rant.
From the start of the Kyoto Accord, the Canadian government of the day voiced enthusiastic support, but did zilch to fulfil its pledges. Over the years support has grown among governments and individuals who should know better. Chicken Little thrives.
For the record, Sun Media has been at the vanguard of those questioning not only the wisdom, but the accuracy of dire predictions disaster for the economy and life itself if greenhouse gases and associated emissions that allegedly affect the climate are not curbed.
Calm down, everyone
Sun Media's Lorrie Goldstein has consistently challenged global warming hysteria, and has resolutely resisted being stampeded into political subservience.
Another voice of sanity is Lawrence Solomon, a founder of Energy Probe and various environmental bodies. He's authored several respected environmental books and is a columnist for the National Post.
In a extensive interview with Troy Media, Solomon, demolished many of the environmental myths and climate beliefs that infect society today. A few points:
- The media's belief that science is agreed on climate change and the UN's conclusions, is wrong. The science is not solid, but speculative -- and the 2,500 scientists cited by the UN climate change panel do not all agree. Those who disagree are simply excluded from the UN's findings. Bad journalism and poor science.
- Many climate change advocates see Kyoto as a means of transferring wealth to Third World countries -- especially in the carbon-trading field of developed countries buying credits from less-developed countries' (India and China). Also, climate change means billions available for research. A money bandwagon.
- Many believe CO is a problem. It is not. It may really be a benefit as "nature's fertilizer." Coal burning produces emissions such as nitrogen and sulphur oxides and mercury emission which are dangerous. But CO isn't a pollutant. Carbon is the basis of life on Earth.
- Science is not unanimous on climate change. Earth has been hotter in the past (1934 was the hottest year of the past century), and Earth is greener today than any time in recent years. We know very little about climate -- and not that much about weather patterns. It's folly to implement policy based on admitted ignorance.
- Imposing carbon taxes is premature. Ethanol is an economic and environmental boondoggle that may produce unclean air. It increases greenhouse gases, while contributing to inflation and rising food prices. Mindlessly (albeit it sincerely) hysterical.
- As a fuel, coal has been made super clean, similar to natural gas. Canada has hundreds of years of coal resources, but politicians fear public anger if they advocate coal.
Perhaps we should all return to skepticism and rely more on (un)common sense: Is it not presumptuous to suppose that we humans, with our SUVs, have the power, to influence nature and destroy the world?
Hot and bothered over climate
By Peter Worthington
If you are confused about the Kyoto Accord, climate change, greenhouse gases, the deleterious effects of carbon dioxide (CO), and assorted environmental threats as outlined in Al Gore's Academy Award and Nobel Prize winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, I have a solution.
Go on the Internet to www.friendsofscience.org, the University of Calgary-based non-profit volunteer organization of atmospheric and other scientists who challenge politically inspired concepts that the planet is threatened by climate change due to man's irresponsible misuse of the environment.
The website is replete with data that differs considerably from the Chicken Little "Sky is Falling!" convictions of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), comprised of 2,500 scientists (of differing disciplines) whose assessments are sorted and selected by another UN body which blends them into a politically acceptable rant.
From the start of the Kyoto Accord, the Canadian government of the day voiced enthusiastic support, but did zilch to fulfil its pledges. Over the years support has grown among governments and individuals who should know better. Chicken Little thrives.
For the record, Sun Media has been at the vanguard of those questioning not only the wisdom, but the accuracy of dire predictions disaster for the economy and life itself if greenhouse gases and associated emissions that allegedly affect the climate are not curbed.
Calm down, everyone
Sun Media's Lorrie Goldstein has consistently challenged global warming hysteria, and has resolutely resisted being stampeded into political subservience.
Another voice of sanity is Lawrence Solomon, a founder of Energy Probe and various environmental bodies. He's authored several respected environmental books and is a columnist for the National Post.
In a extensive interview with Troy Media, Solomon, demolished many of the environmental myths and climate beliefs that infect society today. A few points:
- The media's belief that science is agreed on climate change and the UN's conclusions, is wrong. The science is not solid, but speculative -- and the 2,500 scientists cited by the UN climate change panel do not all agree. Those who disagree are simply excluded from the UN's findings. Bad journalism and poor science.
- Many climate change advocates see Kyoto as a means of transferring wealth to Third World countries -- especially in the carbon-trading field of developed countries buying credits from less-developed countries' (India and China). Also, climate change means billions available for research. A money bandwagon.
- Many believe CO is a problem. It is not. It may really be a benefit as "nature's fertilizer." Coal burning produces emissions such as nitrogen and sulphur oxides and mercury emission which are dangerous. But CO isn't a pollutant. Carbon is the basis of life on Earth.
- Science is not unanimous on climate change. Earth has been hotter in the past (1934 was the hottest year of the past century), and Earth is greener today than any time in recent years. We know very little about climate -- and not that much about weather patterns. It's folly to implement policy based on admitted ignorance.
- Imposing carbon taxes is premature. Ethanol is an economic and environmental boondoggle that may produce unclean air. It increases greenhouse gases, while contributing to inflation and rising food prices. Mindlessly (albeit it sincerely) hysterical.
- As a fuel, coal has been made super clean, similar to natural gas. Canada has hundreds of years of coal resources, but politicians fear public anger if they advocate coal.
Perhaps we should all return to skepticism and rely more on (un)common sense: Is it not presumptuous to suppose that we humans, with our SUVs, have the power, to influence nature and destroy the world?
Council Member
Posts: 1,790
July 14th, 2008, 06:20 AM
Fillin' up my green footprint with a new truck
By Connie Woodcock
We've had reason to ponder our carbon footprint lately chez Woodcock.
Partly it's because we're beginning to feel the heat from city dwellers who've bought into the global warming issue full strength and think of us as eco-criminals for living in the country, driving everywhere we go, mowing our acre of grass and just generally occupying way more than our share of the planet.
But mostly, it's about that big old silver Ford pickup we bought from a neighbour last week which is now sitting in our driveway.
What can I say? It was cheap, in good shape, and provides a spare vehicle that can hold a lot of stuff without being too fancy to go to the dump or let our beagle ride in the passenger seat.
On the up side, the truck passed its emissions test with flying colours -- 0.00 units of carbon dioxide both idling and accelerating and minimal hydrocarbons. On the downside, we filled its gas tank for the first time and it cost $127.
It is a truck and it's going to use lots of gas -- although not nearly as much as if we'd purchased one of the SUVs that are beginning to clutter up used car lots in big numbers. Still, for the money we saved, we can buy a whole lot of gas. So sue me.
But then it occurred to us that our six acres are working hard to limit our carbon footprint. We have hundreds of trees all soaking up CO2. The average rural Canadian tree sequesters 225 kg of carbon over 80 years or 2.8 kg per year. The average urban tree sequesters about 200 kg or 2.5 kg per year.
We also have an acre of meadow, where milkweed grows that nourishes the world's dwindling number of monarch butterflies. In fact, our land provides habitat for a wide variety of wildlife big and small. Our grass acts as a carbon sink and conserves moisture. We live on a gravel hilltop which is a natural aquifer and where there is almost always a breeze so we don't need air conditioning. In winter, we use our wood stove as much as possible.
As for driving, I'm making fewer trips and I'm driving a lot slower -- a $265 speeding ticket having convinced me to change my ways fast.
All in all, I'd say we're doing what we can, considering there are many things we can't do -- install a wind turbine (unaffordable), get rid of our oil furnace (no alternative other than propane) or take transit (no such thing available). And our property is helping us give back.
But then along came British Columbia Premier Gordon Campbell whose highly unpopular carbon tax recently went into effect and who last week made one of those bizarre statements that remind us why B.C. is called la-la-land. It's time, he said, for the north to get rid of its dependence on diesel fuel.
First, I laughed. What does he think they're going to use? Whale oil?
But then I got worried. Such remarks illustrate how unrealistic the mobilization against global warming really is. Northerners don't have any options and, frankly, neither do most of the rest of us, even those holed up in their concrete condo-bunkers on King St. W.
Do you really think riding the TTC isn't putting shocking amounts of carbon into the atmosphere? That your electricity arrives by magic? That your garbage is hauled to landfill by the trash fairy? Please.
This is Canada -- a large, cold country with big empty spaces. We must have heat and light and we must go places. There are only so many ways of cutting back and many Canadians have already reached the limits of possibility.
Once you've insulated your house, installed new windows, changed your light bulbs, purchased the most energy-efficient heating system you can afford, bought a small car, turned your lawn into rough pasture and put up a clothesline, you're done.
So the B.C. premier's carbon tax is just a foretaste of what will come if Stephane Dion has his way -- punishment for existing.
I think both the B.C. tax and Dion's "Green Shift" have just made it a whole lot easier for the Conservatives to elect their candidates in rural ridings from coast to coast. And they should give urban voters reason to wonder what exactly the limits to going green really are.
Fillin' up my green footprint with a new truck
By Connie Woodcock
We've had reason to ponder our carbon footprint lately chez Woodcock.
Partly it's because we're beginning to feel the heat from city dwellers who've bought into the global warming issue full strength and think of us as eco-criminals for living in the country, driving everywhere we go, mowing our acre of grass and just generally occupying way more than our share of the planet.
But mostly, it's about that big old silver Ford pickup we bought from a neighbour last week which is now sitting in our driveway.
What can I say? It was cheap, in good shape, and provides a spare vehicle that can hold a lot of stuff without being too fancy to go to the dump or let our beagle ride in the passenger seat.
On the up side, the truck passed its emissions test with flying colours -- 0.00 units of carbon dioxide both idling and accelerating and minimal hydrocarbons. On the downside, we filled its gas tank for the first time and it cost $127.
It is a truck and it's going to use lots of gas -- although not nearly as much as if we'd purchased one of the SUVs that are beginning to clutter up used car lots in big numbers. Still, for the money we saved, we can buy a whole lot of gas. So sue me.
But then it occurred to us that our six acres are working hard to limit our carbon footprint. We have hundreds of trees all soaking up CO2. The average rural Canadian tree sequesters 225 kg of carbon over 80 years or 2.8 kg per year. The average urban tree sequesters about 200 kg or 2.5 kg per year.
We also have an acre of meadow, where milkweed grows that nourishes the world's dwindling number of monarch butterflies. In fact, our land provides habitat for a wide variety of wildlife big and small. Our grass acts as a carbon sink and conserves moisture. We live on a gravel hilltop which is a natural aquifer and where there is almost always a breeze so we don't need air conditioning. In winter, we use our wood stove as much as possible.
As for driving, I'm making fewer trips and I'm driving a lot slower -- a $265 speeding ticket having convinced me to change my ways fast.
All in all, I'd say we're doing what we can, considering there are many things we can't do -- install a wind turbine (unaffordable), get rid of our oil furnace (no alternative other than propane) or take transit (no such thing available). And our property is helping us give back.
But then along came British Columbia Premier Gordon Campbell whose highly unpopular carbon tax recently went into effect and who last week made one of those bizarre statements that remind us why B.C. is called la-la-land. It's time, he said, for the north to get rid of its dependence on diesel fuel.
First, I laughed. What does he think they're going to use? Whale oil?
But then I got worried. Such remarks illustrate how unrealistic the mobilization against global warming really is. Northerners don't have any options and, frankly, neither do most of the rest of us, even those holed up in their concrete condo-bunkers on King St. W.
Do you really think riding the TTC isn't putting shocking amounts of carbon into the atmosphere? That your electricity arrives by magic? That your garbage is hauled to landfill by the trash fairy? Please.
This is Canada -- a large, cold country with big empty spaces. We must have heat and light and we must go places. There are only so many ways of cutting back and many Canadians have already reached the limits of possibility.
Once you've insulated your house, installed new windows, changed your light bulbs, purchased the most energy-efficient heating system you can afford, bought a small car, turned your lawn into rough pasture and put up a clothesline, you're done.
So the B.C. premier's carbon tax is just a foretaste of what will come if Stephane Dion has his way -- punishment for existing.
I think both the B.C. tax and Dion's "Green Shift" have just made it a whole lot easier for the Conservatives to elect their candidates in rural ridings from coast to coast. And they should give urban voters reason to wonder what exactly the limits to going green really are.
