PM must act on Kyoto now

[whicker]

Well what do you know? Just as I've said many times on the arguement of climate change... and some of you think this is just an election issue? And people want to take a gamble against what we already know of the science with their lives and their children's lives??


And for those who want to argue that this will benefit us by expanding Canada's agricultural zone — give your heads a shake. The climate might seem to expand the zone for growing as for warmer northern temps, but that doesn't mean land that hasn't been farmed before will give predictable yields. And what are we going to do? Clear more forest to make way for more farming? Forest that we need to help recycle the carbon in the atmosphere which is a large part of this problem?

Moreover, world food shortages will no doubt mean very high prices at the grocer. There is a lot we need to import aside from our grains, or perhaps many of you are comfortable living on mostly a bread diet? Well, who knows how this will effect our agriculture, but whatever the case the consequence over all will be very unpleasant.

Case you don't realize it urban cancer sprawl will kill agriculture before global warming/cold so while we are going hungry from no agricultural land we can contemplate the other problems.

 

[TenPenny]

I do have one question. If living up to the Kyoto accord is such a big deal, why didn't the Liberals actually DO anything about it?

Or,perhaps, is this an issue where it's far better to sit in opposition, demanding action, than it is to act when you're in power.

M Dion, I detect a huge lack of credibility on this issue, your dog not withstanding.

 

[Tonington]

I think the whole problem with the Liberals was, it was a nice "touchy-feely" initiative, and they didn't have to do anything because the public support/pressure wasn't there yet. They made some programs, threw money at it without really knowing what results to expect. I think if we looked at a graph with the oh so wonderful hockey stick of emissions, and put the public support/opinion data in there, it would look very similar, only lagging behind the emissions. That is why there has been very little done, asking politicians to think ahead of their mandate is an exercise in futility, and only when the public support comes around do we see any attention being paid.

 

[LittleRunningGag]

Gee David Suzuki a sellout? First I've heard that nonsense. And comparing race to greenhouse gases? Absurd.

Where's the updated web page on the world's and Canada's GHGs?

Now, I don't hate on Suzuki, but I wanted to put this out there. Scroll to the bottom of the link to find the quoted section.

http://www.canadianvalues.ca/issues.aspx?aid=267

After Suzuki insinuates that scientists who disagree with him are "shilling" for big corporations, Oakley asks him where he gets his funding. Suzuki replies that his foundation takes no money from governments and complains that “corporations have not been interested in funding us." (To hear the audio clip click here.)

Corporations uninterested? Is it possible that the Great Suzuki has failed to attract a single corporate donation to his feel-good campaign to save the earth? Not one?

Actually, the David Suzuki Foundation’s annual report for 2005/2006 lists at least 52 corporate donors including: Bell Canada, Toyota, IBM, McGraw-Hill Ryerson, Microsoft, Scotia Capital, Warner Brothers, RBC, Canon and Bank of Montreal.

The David Suzuki Foundation also received donations from EnCana Corporation, a world leader in natural gas production and oil sands development, ATCO Gas, Alberta’s principle distributor of natural gas, and a number of pension funds including the OPG (Ontario Power Generation) Employees’ and Pensioners’ Charity Trust. OPG is one of the largest suppliers of electricity in the world operating 5 fossil fuel-burning generation plants and 3 nuclear plants... which begs the question – is Suzuki now pro-nuclear power?

If I were less generous I might be tempted to accuse Suzuki of hypocrisy for accepting donations from corporations that he must believe contribute significantly to the production of greenhouse gases, but that would miss the point entirely. The real issue is that, contrary to his clear assertion, the David Suzuki Foundation does receive funding from corporations.

 

[whicker]

I do have one question. If living up to the Kyoto accord is such a big deal, why didn't the Liberals actually DO anything about it?

Or,perhaps, is this an issue where it's far better to sit in opposition, demanding action, than it is to act when you're in power.

M Dion, I detect a huge lack of credibility on this issue, your dog not withstanding.

for shame that you would say the liberals didn't do anything :laughing7:

 

[Sparrow]

And yet people believe that he does not lie???????????????

 

[Sparrow]

Why are we arguing over if we can reach Kyoto goals or not? We should at least try (if we don't quite make it ok, but at least we will have reduced emissions by some amount). We agreed to do this...remember. If we don't try while the rest of the world is, we deserve to be taken over by a nation committed to the health of the planet.

The current trend in GHGs in the atmosphere is unprecidented. It makes me mad that people still don't believe that there's a global crisis facing us and that we're the problem behind it.

Unlike before, when Homo sapien was trying to learn how to build fires, these days we have a civilization that depends on the relatively stable conditions of our planet. A change in global temperature/ sea level/ everything else that goes with the global warming crisis would be devestating to the way we live... NO DOUBT ABOUT IT! So really it doesn't even matter if we're directly causing the problem or not (we are causing it but if people insist we're not)... We still need to fix it. We have technologies that can help slow the problem down and we can (if political will is there i.e. people of the world want to) develop technologies to solve the problem (i.e. reduce GHGs in the atmosphere to a level that global temperature will stay within our needs). I can't understand why right-wing business/ money grabbing people would not be in favour of battling global warming. The effects of global warming would be devestating to business (New York would be underwater for crying out loud, how could that be good for business). In addition to this, business would benefit by the fact that there would be a new industry created in pollution prevention and remediation (the industry would be HUGE! Bigger than the oil and gas industry).

Its no wonder to me that people have no jobs or hate their service to greedy polluting corporations. We are only tapping into half of the global job market... The polluting half. There needs to be a balance. We need to create just as many green jobs as dirty jobs to maintain the health of the planet. We can exploit our planet like we're currently doing but we need to balance out the exploitation with stewardship (cleaning up the mess we're making by exploiting the planet). I could see the creation of green jobs solving many other global and national problems that we have: Unemployment, homelessness, aboriginal affairs, health, suicide, etc.

If we don't stop polluting our sensitive atmosphere with CO2 and other, we need look no further than our celestial neighbor Venus. Its atmosphere is so full of GHGs (albeit not anthropogenic. But has the same effect) that there is no hope of evolved life living there... Its WAYYYYYY too hot!

If you believe the last paragraph in your post then explain to be why CO2 emissions and been recorded in the north at 2-3,000PPM approx. 55 million years ago compared to 380PPM today.

 

[Tonington]

Volcanoes. Though that's not set in stone

 

[elevennevele]

Case you don't realize it urban cancer sprawl will kill agriculture before global warming/cold so while we are going hungry from no agricultural land we can contemplate the other problems.

You ever live in Europe for a time? You would find the rural very well populated but the the land use for agriculture is still maintained and productive. Canada is far from an issue of overpopulating the countryside if your point is being addressed in that direction.

No, urban sprawl isn't as much a threat as the issue of drastically shifting climate patterns. Over population of the planet demanding greater resources for sustainability is more of a threat than urban sprawl at this point with climate change being the product of such a demand on resources via world popluation. Such goes hand in hand of course, but the more immediate threat would have to be recognized as the consequence of climate change in which case we have to reduce emissions now with the level of world population as it is.

 

[Sparrow]

Yes, I agree among other things. Another question is what has happened since the last Ice Age and what natural processes are occurring?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/features/understanding/iceage_01.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/features/understanding/iceage_02.shtml

As this shows things are moving, I do not believe that we are the primary cause for this. However I do believe we should clean up our act for our own health, it will not slow down climate warming. I also don't believe Kyoto is the right way to go about it because it allows countries and industries to sell their credit to others at a huge profits. If this is to be an honest effort it should be done without credits.

 

[karra]

However I do believe we should clean up our act for our own health,...

I couldn't agree more. . . .

and,

I also don't believe Kyoto is the right way to go about it because it allows countries and industries to sell their credit to others at a huge profits.

Correct - it's a Maurice Strong/Al Gore/Boob Rae/Celine Dion attempt to prey upon the unsuspecting - even our very own local nutter with no knowledge and/or experience in these matters, Suzuki - has come unstuck. . . .

 

[elevennevele]

In no way am I suggesting that urban sprawl doesn't create serious problems or that one shouldn’t recognize that all these things hold relationship to one other. The urgency however is the very immediate threat at our global doorstep. That clock is beginning to run out. So before we can fix all the other things with our sole concentration, our contribution to climate change is what needs to be seriously addressed, and that could well reach into all these other issues as part of a combined action in the long run.

Right now however we need a real shot in the arm so to speak as far as what we can do for these next few years. We are getting close to a proverbial fork in the road. By the time we get hit by the full impact of the consequence of inaction where everyone no longer hesitates to sacrifice, the reversal at that point might be too little too late. Our way of life and the much greater hardships to follow from such inaction could become a painful consequence that will face us for generations.

 

[elevennevele]

Yes, I agree among other things. Another question is what has happened since the last Ice Age and what natural processes are occurring?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/features/understanding/iceage_01.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/features/understanding/iceage_02.shtml

As this shows things are moving, I do not believe that we are the primary cause for this. However I do believe we should clean up our act for our own health, it will not slow down climate warming. I also don't believe Kyoto is the right way to go about it because it allows countries and industries to sell their credit to others at a huge profits. If this is to be an honest effort it should be done without credits.

To make a point, an asteroid hitting the earth can be viewed as a natural occurrence. We have the technology to monitor and perhaps do something about preventing an impact, but again that is a choice of intervention. To let a large enough asteroid hit however could create mass extinction on this planet.

I don’t rightly know what natural occurrences may have resulted in the sudden extinction of the dinosaurs. Also I’m well aware that if the super volcano under yellowstone park were to erupt from it’s thousands upon thousands of years slumber, there would be nothing we could do about that.

So sure there are natural occurrences within this planets life span that in it’s own way can cause mass extinction, or a huge change in planetary life. However, our abilities to shape the surface of this planet in the past 100 years is “impressive”. If you can imagine how much we’ve done in so short a human history, than why is it so hard to imagine that “we” may now be a cause great enough for such a potential destruction of ourselves and life in general?

We can view our human structures/excavations from outer space. The nighttime side of our planet lights up like stars on the surface from orbit. China is creating giant clouds of pollution over it’s country that can be viewed moving from satellite.

The science and even common sense points to today’s issue of climate change as one of our own design, and in our knowledge we are also in a position to prevent the continued damage by us.

The issue of climate change in ‘our time’ is an obligation that we are simply going to have to sacrifice towards fixing. If you spend more than you have, you lose the house in the end. It’s going to be as simple as that.

 

[L Gilbert]

Personally, I think we should forget the Kyoto crap and develop our own plan. Kinda like what BC's Gordon Campbull did. It seems more based on science, unlike the Kyoto thing.

 

[Sparrow]

Personally, I think we should forget the Kyoto crap and develop our own plan. Kinda like what BC's Gordon Campbull did. It seems more based on science, unlike the Kyoto thing.

I agree complete and this way industries and countries would not be able to sell the credits at huge prices.

 

[whicker]

In no way am I suggesting that urban sprawl doesn't create serious problems or that one shouldn’t recognize that all these things hold relationship to one other. The urgency however is the very immediate threat at our global doorstep. That clock is beginning to run out. So before we can fix all the other things with our sole concentration, our contribution to climate change is what needs to be seriously addressed, and that could well reach into all these other issues as part of a combined action in the long run.

Right now however we need a real shot in the arm so to speak as far as what we can do for these next few years. We are getting close to a proverbial fork in the road. By the time we get hit by the full impact of the consequence of inaction where everyone no longer hesitates to sacrifice, the reversal at that point might be too little too late. Our way of life and the much greater hardships to follow from such inaction could become a painful consequence that will face us for generations.

I think I mentioned it before in another thread. It doesn't much matter what the gov't is going to do or not do it is up to the people on this earth to do something and till they can get their throwaway mentality changed restrictions by govt aren't going to amount to a hill of beans because a way round them will be found out if not by the peoples themselves but by the businesses who cater to the throw away dollar mentality

As for urban cancer. Well, this is not Europe and we don't have a lot of agricultural land that isn't being eaten by population. People could survive much better up in the northern elements then agriculture. What is going to happen when the agri belt is gone. Right now some of the best farm land in Ontario is the pit of Toronto and surrounding, encroaching areas. Might be a race to see which wins out, the cancer or warming. Either way is going to be a mess.

 

[DurkaDurka]

Personally, I don't care what happens in the rest of the world. I think Canadians & Americans should be addressing this problem jointly. I am not interested in trading credits with India, China and the sorts. What we should be doing is telling China to go fornicate with them selves, we need solutions that will fix what we have done/do, not to trade credits with these "emerging nations".

 

[elevennevele]

I think I mentioned it before in another thread. It doesn't much matter what the gov't is going to do or not do it is up to the people on this earth to do something and till they can get their throwaway mentality changed restrictions by govt aren't going to amount to a hill of beans because a way round them will be found out if not by the peoples themselves but by the businesses who cater to the throw away dollar mentality

As for urban cancer. Well, this is not Europe and we don't have a lot of agricultural land that isn't being eaten by population. People could survive much better up in the northern elements then agriculture. What is going to happen when the agri belt is gone. Right now some of the best farm land in Ontario is the pit of Toronto and surrounding, encroaching areas. Might be a race to see which wins out, the cancer or warming. Either way is going to be a mess.

Oh it totally matters what the government does. It is the government of a country that passes regulations on industry to meet certain standards. Imagine if the government allowed a completely free market in all things. Would you feel comfortable buying unregulated medicine? Unregulated food? At some level, any regulation is a cost especially at the point of inception but that is a government's responsiblity to enforce. However, when standards become established, the cost initiatives simply become accounted for it and we then later expect it as part of the standards of our society.

Neither you or me can make auto makers, for instance, start producing hybrid cars. Even if we petition and sign a whole bunch of names down asking for such vehicles. If the auto makers for instance can still make a profit with current vehicles, why would they start adding any cost toward the business unnecessarily, and they control the market by which we are dependent on?

Secondly, oil companies have a fair amount of influence in the auto industry and they still want to sell the commodity that they are in control of which they are making billions upon billions doing. They are soo wealthy and powerful these days they definitely have ‘pull’ in the markets and in political circles.

It’s almost laughable that for a sector that is making record quarterly corporate profits in the billions (each three months), governments such as the US or Canada think such industry deserve certain tax breaks. That is having ‘pull’ if you ask me.

Therefore, the only way standards can ever be met is for government to set standards. Neither you or me or the average public no matter how much we recycle, or try to live green will not have the same impact compared to the amount of waste industry as a whole produces. We all have to live by example and I do it, but industry has the greatest impact overall.

Ok, I’m a non smoker, but to make a point, it’s funny how we can pass laws to prevent the average joe from smoking (regulation), but as far as industry smoking (so to speak), how can the government not be in a position to play any part of it? On an individual basis that would be like listening to some guy brag about how he quit smoking as he goes to his new job to make charcoal in an unregulated third world country.

But it’s mostly up to the little guy to produce results? And I say that mockingly even though my favourite Ghandi quote is, “be the change you wish to see in the world”.

 

[whicker]

quote=elevennevele;794532Oh it totally matters what the government does. It is the government of a country that passes regulations on industry to meet certain standards. Imagine if the government allowed a completely free market in all things. Would you feel comfortable buying unregulated medicine? Unregulated food? At some level, any regulation is a cost especially at the point of inception but that is a government's responsiblity to enforce. However, when standards become established, the cost initiatives simply become accounted for it and we then later expect it as part of the standards of our society.
It might matter what the govt did if the govt did anything more than line their own interests which follows into my second part. And as for standards and govt?? Even created, that is another oxymoron
Neither you or me can make auto makers, for instance, start producing hybrid cars. Even if we petition and sign a whole bunch of names down asking for such vehicles. If the auto makers for instance can still make a profit with current vehicles, why would they start adding any cost toward the business unnecessarily, and they control the market by which we are dependent on?
My second part was till humanity gets rid of its throw away mentality (being generous here) then nothing will be done and the govts won't regulate the mentioned industries because they are in bed with them and they know the mentality of voters too. And, the little guy could make the auto and gas industry heel if they weren't so in love with themselves and their toys.
Secondly, oil companies have a fair amount of influence in the auto industry and they still want to sell the commodity that they are in control of which they are making billions upon billions doing. They are soo wealthy and powerful these days they definitely have ‘pull’ in the markets and in political circles.
These companies have got the public right where they want them now. We Canadians have become meek little miserables as evidenced by the yoyo gas prices. ceo wants new boat, raise gas, ceo wants another freebee raise gas and we go right along with it. The inquiry into price fixing:laughing7: Yeah, like it was going to find anything
It’s almost laughable that for a sector that is making record quarterly corporate profits in the billions (each three months), governments such as the US or Canada think such industry deserve certain tax breaks. That is having ‘pull’ if you ask me.
I agree which is why the govt will do didley.
Therefore, the only way standards can ever be met is for government to set standards. Neither you or me or the average public no matter how much we recycle, or try to live green will not have the same impact compared to the amount of waste industry as a whole produces. We all have to live by example and I do it, but industry has the greatest impact overall.
Don't you find that when we, the little guy, comes up with a solution to a polution problem, small as it may be, that 'somehow' the solution is negated by another poluting gimmick?
Ok, I’m a non smoker, but to make a point, it’s funny how we can pass laws to prevent the average joe from smoking (regulation), but as far as industry smoking (so to speak), how can the government not be in a position to play any part of it? On an individual basis that would be like listening to some guy brag about how he quit smoking as he goes to his new job to make charcoal in an unregulated third world country.

But it’s mostly up to the little guy to produce results? And I say that mockingly even though my favourite Ghandi quote is, “be the change you wish to see in the world”.
Hmmm, the little guy. Until there is a big change in attitude he isn't going to do didley either and that isn't mockery, just plain fact.