Canadian Democracy - Takes another hit under Harper
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
Environment - Transportation / Indicators of Well-being in Canada
Meanwhile, increases in the number of vehicles on the road and the size of these vehicles have contributed to rising levels of GHG emissions. In 2005, transportation accounted for 26% of Canada's estimated GHG emissions, an increase of 33% from levels reported for 1990[3].
Of course, it would not occur to you that Peter Kent was lying? I told him so and, after I challenged the member for my riding to public debate on Canada's actions on climate change (he refused because he "did not know enough about it) he was forced to agree with me that Kent was wrong - would not accept that he was lying. But the local paper did.
There are no penalties: nothing enforceable. As most countries around the world know for they have missed their targets, too. It would have cost Canada a great deal of money to purchase the credits need to meet its Kyoto targets if it wanted to do that. But, there were no penalties and this wretched government got away with more lies because of an apathetic public.
And the increase in transportation is relevant to the oil sands disaster?
Why would you say that? Since climate change is by far the most important problem facing the human world now, and the most important it has ever faced, everyone should be into it. I know a lot of people who are.
And just about every scientist in the world is and is equally concerned.
Perhaps they should concern themselves with ways to cope with the inevitable. Climates change - and have been doing so since the rock cooled. Democracy and Harper's version thereof have nothing to do with it.
It is not inevitable in the degree that will happen if we continue to do so little. What will happen if we do stay on that path cannot be "coped" with. At a certain point, adaptation becomes impossible. Left for another decade or so, it will still be possible to do something but the costs will be staggering and the climate something that you will not like.
Then we would be in a pickle. Unless the caves were underground at a level where the temperature was moderate and we stayed there, we would not survive.
It would be like H.G. Wells with no above ground relatives to eat.
How does that help the environment?
Wrong again.
Ya, we here that doomsday ideological rant (Thanks Fuzzy!) all the time.
Maybe you can explain how it will be so, with some accredited documentation to back it up.
Underground farming- no problem with sunlight- we just herd your type together and instead up trying to pump sunshine up our respective asses you could then shine it somewheres productive.
Both the International Energy Association and the Club of Rome have in the last few months said that wehave no more than five or six years left to begin dramatic reductions or face the FACT that the temperature increase will not be limited to that 2c that is the critical tipping point from where sea level rise and all kinds of other nastiness will not be retrained to a level compatible with our present civilization.
As for whether scientists are concerned. there are 15,000 in climate science or related fields who contribute to the IPCC, either directly as authors or as contributing reviewers.
They all are concerned.
Of course, they forgot to check with you and ask you to employ your huge brain to confirm or deny their findings.
Grow up!
That doesn't explain how buying carbon credits benefits the environment.
You fail.
That's "just about every scientist in the world"?
You fail.
LOL...
Given your last comment, the irony there is funny.
Let me know when you figure out how to have a conversation.
