Government kills independent science body
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
I do. If I keep hearing how 1.5% is going to end life as we know it I want how you think we make a difference.
I want to know what the IPCC and WWF are going to do about this?
Yellowstone Super Volcano is about to Erupt?
Yellowstone Super Volcano is about to Erupt?
I'm sure nothing catastrophic will happen in the short term if we just continue on as we are. That's posturing by the bureaucrats, but for those of us with higher standards (unlike the logical peasants such as yourself and cap'n morgan, tsk tsk), we would like a fair balance of the economy and the environment.
In your 22 years in resources what drastic ego-friendly operational changes have you seen? Are things the same as they were?
It's going to be very expensive for us if we don't begin working on this now. We can either get all our monies from the oil and hope we have enough to pay these huge debts, or we can actually save more by developing our resources sustainably.
It depends on the rate at which we develop resources.
Can you tone down the rhetoric a bit so we can actually have a cohesive conversation that isn't antagonistic?
In the past 80 years we've only tapped into 5% of SK's energy potential. What is currently being done to extract and process the remain 95% efficiently and sustainably or are antiquated methods still being utilized?
Bull**** tales of impending doom aren't a marketing tool that is antagonistic?
Ask Brad Wall.
But if it's left to private industry, they'll attempt to suck it out as fast as they can.
If you think that doing nothing won't come with severe costs that will affect the economy, then you're delusional. The policies that will be put in place that you will eventually have to succumb to will be extremely expensive, the longer you wait.
That's why this isn't just about the environment, it's about the economy as well.
I have to ask Wall? I'm sure he already knows. Would you like to know too or you are going to continue down a path thinking that nothing has or is changing?
No U!
Here's something for you to chew (or stew) on..
Not thinking green will hurt Canadian businesses internationally: NRTEE panel
Canadian businesses are facing "significant economic repercussions" that will affect the country's growth and international competitiveness because of inadequate policies to ensure environmental stewardship through the lifespan of products, says a report released Wednesday by a doomed federal advisory panel.
The research by the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy was requested last year by Environment Minister Peter Kent and included multiple consultations with officials from government, businesses and academics.
Entitled Canada's Opportunity: Adopting Life Cycle Approaches for Sustainable Development, the report noted that foreign governments have already started to introduce regulations that set minimum environmental standards on products — such as requiring fuels to have a cleaner environmental footprint, restricting the trade and market access of Canadian companies.
"The risk that Canadian companies are not prepared for existing and future foreign-government regulations that require Life Cycle Approaches has significant economic repercussions," said the report, led by policy adviser Hilary Davies from the round table. "Businesses can lose part or all of their access to export markets, face fines or penalties for not complying with the regulations, or suffer damage to brand recognition."
David McLaughlin, the president and CEO of the 24-year-old advisory panel, noted that some companies and brands, such as Canadian Tire, have already introduced new policies to consider the life-cycle costs of products and packaging that have actually allowed it to avoid some energy consumption and save about $6 million annually.
He also gave credit to Kent for asking the round table to address questions about the risks and opportunities surrounding taking a "life-cycle approach" to economic and environmental policies.
The government announced in its most recent budget that it is shutting down the round table, which has a staff of about 30 people and receives $5 million in annual federal funding. Kent has said the government can get some research and policy advice from the Internet and other non-government sources of information.
McLaughlin explained that the findings from the latest report emerged because the panel convened several meetings with affected stakeholders and business executives who were openly discussing the issue for the first time and expressing some growing concerns.
"It surprised us that there was that much concern," McLaughlin told Postmedia News. "It was under the table a bit. It hadn't been brought up because nobody asked about it before."
McLaughlin and Davies also said the approach reflects consumer demand for greener products that a company must address in order to protect its reputation.
By failing to adopt life-cycle approaches in Canada, the report suggests that companies, such as Canadian oilsands producers, would be at risk from emerging foreign policies in the United States and Europe to lower greenhouse gas emissions from transportation fuels.
It said the risks also plague other sectors, such as aerospace, electronics, and building and construction.
"Canada risks serious harm to its national economic interests by not proactively developing frameworks nor engaging in initiatives related to Life Cycle Approaches domestically and globally," said the report.
It also warned that forcing companies to comply with regulations requiring a life-cycle approach to their operations in a short time frame would require "larger and more immediate investments" to either respond or "risk losing market share."
"This risk is real and Canada must act now to maintain its competitiveness," the report said.
Ohhh, how compelling.. A ground breaking 'study' from a roundtable organzation that just had it's funding cut. Lemme ask you something, how come it took 20 years for these clowns to come up with that superficial, unproven, unaudited and highly subjective opinion piece.
Think it had anything to do with the Feds chopping their head off and these guys suddenly looking to be relevant?
I think the Feds prefer investing in real things like: PTRC - Petroleum Technology Research Centre instead of groups that sit around and talk about ****.