How will a Conservative government be better?

[Chake99]

Socialism sucks the life out of a country and conservatism concentrates all the life into the upper class.

I think liberalism works by far the best and I doubt anyone will alter my opinion on that. They may however alter my opinion on how Liberal minded the liberals are.

If Blue Alberta was centrist or centrist/left he would be a liberal but not necesarily a liberal voter. If he was left he would be a socialist if he was farther left he would be a communist. If he was right he would be a conservative, then a libertarian and then a fascist.

From what I've gleaned you're not Liberal as you don't believe that the government should oversee the rehabilitation of the poor into society, nor do you believe in restricting companies. So you are right. and Conservative.

Rev we have no right to dictate what a women does with her own body, but if we define the fetus as human she has no right to touch it. However I disagree in using that definition.

Also can you people stop dropping pointless statements such as "Canadian Values." All you are doing is trying to do is distance yourself from the person and their beliefs.

It was "american values" among other things that won the Republicans 2004

Stereotypical values if they are illogical and do not hold up in an argument will only be used by an idiot too dumb to think for himself. I am not calling anyone here that as I think the so-called "Canadian Values" make sense, but one should name them individually and debate them as opposed to simply using them to call their opposition un-canadian.

Finally please drop the flame wars. It has always seemed to me that the point of a debate was to reach a better mutual understanding, which may be somewhere in between the two sides, or one side of an argument in closer inspection may not hold up at all in which case the other one is the proper answer.

Regardless flame wars help in no concievable way, they only insult the intelligence of the poster.

And before someone says I have no jursidiction to reprimand you people, I aknowledge it.

 

[bluealberta]

And on the left side, Kyoto, wow, that’s a whopper for anyone that knows how to crunch economic numbers

You'll have to expand on that a bit, Can't Take It. While there will be some short-term costs, the overall outlook for instituting Kyoto is good for the economy. If you know anything about economics at all, you know that the development and introduction of new technologies has always produced wealth. You also know that renovations to install insulation and new windows and doors produces jobs. You know that power production projects like hydro-electric facilities and wind farms produces jobs.

There is also the long-range impact on the economy if we don't do anything about global warming. The insurance is terrified of the impact of more severe weather. Droughts and floods cost our government millions, and will become more and more common as the earth warms. The impact of doing nothing has serious economic implications so the more we can reduce the severity of global warming, the better off we'll be in the future.

Global warming and the Kyoto accord should not be a left-right issue. It shouldn't ever have become politicized. That it has is testament to the unequal power weilded by the oil companies.

Rev, please tell me how sending money to another country to purchase "credits" will reduce Canadian emissions. Please tell me how spending money somewhere else instead of spending this money in Canada to reduce Canadian emissions is a good thing. Please tell me how not spending the Kyoto money in Canada to develop technology and alternate energy sources in Canada which we can then either sell or provide free of charge if that's what you want is a good thing. Let's be a leader, let's develop made in Canada solutions, made in Canada technology, and provide this to the rest of the world, instead of providing billions of dollars to other countries with no accountability back. That I could support, and I suspect most of the right wing could as well. By taking this approach, Canada can not only produce solutions to the alleged global warming theory, we can also make sure the countries who need this technology get what they need to be part of the solution. Canada wins, global warming wins, and the nations who need this technology win. Who loses? No one, except for the people with the hidden agenda regarding this issue, namely the ones who want transfer wealth around the world in the name of socialism.

 

[badboy]

And on the left side, Kyoto, wow, that’s a whopper for anyone that knows how to crunch economic numbers

You'll have to expand on that a bit, Can't Take It. While there will be some short-term costs, the overall outlook for instituting Kyoto is good for the economy. If you know anything about economics at all, you know that the development and introduction of new technologies has always produced wealth. You also know that renovations to install insulation and new windows and doors produces jobs. You know that power production projects like hydro-electric facilities and wind farms produces jobs.

There is also the long-range impact on the economy if we don't do anything about global warming. The insurance is terrified of the impact of more severe weather. Droughts and floods cost our government millions, and will become more and more common as the earth warms. The impact of doing nothing has serious economic implications so the more we can reduce the severity of global warming, the better off we'll be in the future.

Global warming and the Kyoto accord should not be a left-right issue. It shouldn't ever have become politicized. That it has is testament to the unequal power weilded by the oil companies.

Rev, please tell me how sending money to another country will reduce our emissions. Please tell me how spending money somewhere else instead of spending this money in Canada to reduce Canadian emissions is a good thing. Please tell me how not spending the Kyoto money in Canada to develop technology and alternate energy sources in Canada which we can then either sell or provide free of charge if that's what you want is a good thing. Let's be a leader, let's develop made in Canada solutions, made in Canada technology, and provide this to the rest of the world, instead of providing billions of dollars to other countries with no accountability back. That I could support, and I suspect most of the right wing could as well. By taking this approach, Canada can not only produce solutions to the alleged global warming theory, we can also make sure the countries who need this technology get what they need to be part of the solution. Canada wins, global warming wins, and the nations who need this technology win. Who loses? No one, except for the people with the hidden agenda regarding this issue, namely the ones who want transfer wealth around the world in the name of socialism.

See all of that makes sense, no need to give money to ?????? And get nothing in return.


+ I hear global warming is a myth, there was an article this week that said the air is cleaner then we thought.

c'mon Rev i'm sure your read it, why not post it for the rest of us.

 

[bluealberta]

And on the left side, Kyoto, wow, that’s a whopper for anyone that knows how to crunch economic numbers

You'll have to expand on that a bit, Can't Take It. While there will be some short-term costs, the overall outlook for instituting Kyoto is good for the economy. If you know anything about economics at all, you know that the development and introduction of new technologies has always produced wealth. You also know that renovations to install insulation and new windows and doors produces jobs. You know that power production projects like hydro-electric facilities and wind farms produces jobs.

There is also the long-range impact on the economy if we don't do anything about global warming. The insurance is terrified of the impact of more severe weather. Droughts and floods cost our government millions, and will become more and more common as the earth warms. The impact of doing nothing has serious economic implications so the more we can reduce the severity of global warming, the better off we'll be in the future.

Global warming and the Kyoto accord should not be a left-right issue. It shouldn't ever have become politicized. That it has is testament to the unequal power weilded by the oil companies.

Rev, please tell me how sending money to another country will reduce our emissions. Please tell me how spending money somewhere else instead of spending this money in Canada to reduce Canadian emissions is a good thing. Please tell me how not spending the Kyoto money in Canada to develop technology and alternate energy sources in Canada which we can then either sell or provide free of charge if that's what you want is a good thing. Let's be a leader, let's develop made in Canada solutions, made in Canada technology, and provide this to the rest of the world, instead of providing billions of dollars to other countries with no accountability back. That I could support, and I suspect most of the right wing could as well. By taking this approach, Canada can not only produce solutions to the alleged global warming theory, we can also make sure the countries who need this technology get what they need to be part of the solution. Canada wins, global warming wins, and the nations who need this technology win. Who loses? No one, except for the people with the hidden agenda regarding this issue, namely the ones who want transfer wealth around the world in the name of socialism.

See all of that makes sense, no need to give money to ?????? And get nothing in return.


+ I hear global warming is a myth, there was an article this week that said the air is cleaner then we thought.

c'mon Rev i'm sure your read it, why not post it for the rest of us.

Thanks, badboy. The other thing I forgot to mention is that global warming and polltion are not the same thing, but the Kyoto supporters always try to link the theory of global warming with the reality of pollution. One does not beget the other, they are two separate issues.

 

[Jo Canadian]

I hear global warming is a myth, there was an article this week that said the air is cleaner then we thought.

I suggest if you're not too sure if Global warming is a myth or not, I suggest instead of hearing about it to go visit where it's already to take effect. I didn't read this study or listen to that scientist, I can say that I expierienced it. I may as well repeat myself from an earlier post: More bad news on the environment

I noticed crap like this happening up north back in '94. Suddenly the spring that usually takes place over a month happened in one day, normally that's a freak of nature but when it happens every year? Hell in Jan 2004 it rained in Kugluktuk!! That may not seem much to some of you but at that time of year it's supposed to be -35 to -45 without the wind, on average (with wind) it's -50 to -65!.


The Arctic is essentially the Canary of the environment. Life is hard enough as is up there and any change is noticeable. Now that was about 10 years ago when I was noticing the changes and back then, the concern for warming was considerd a myth.

I suggest a spring vacation for yourself next year. Take the nearest First Air flight to Cambridge Bay and talk to the people there. Otherwise don't go believing everything you hear.

 

[Reverend Blair]

+ I hear global warming is a myth, there was an article this week that said the air is cleaner then we thought.

c'mon Rev i'm sure your read it, why not post it for the rest of us.

You mean this one on how we've reduced global dimming and how that reduction will actually cause more global warming because more sunlight is reaching the earth?

I read it. I'm pretty sure you didn't though because it contradicts your point.

Rev, please tell me how sending money to another country to purchase "credits" will reduce Canadian emissions.

It doesn't. What it does do is decrease global emissions. We're dealing with a global problem, not a Canadian one. I've used this example before, but apparently you still haven't read the Kyoto thread and all of the links in it, so I'll go over it again. This is a real life example.

Brazil has met it's targets. Japan has not. There is a town in Brazil that has two problems...a large garbage dump and no electricity. Brazil has no reason to do anything about the dump because they've met their targets, but it would be nice for the village to have electricity. Running power from the grid is insanely expensive though.

In steps Japan. They have the technology to capture methane (a greenhouse gas) escaping from the dump and using that gas to create electricity. So they get credits from Brazil for installing that technology in the village. People in Japan get jobs, the corporation that owns the technology turns a profit (paid for by the Japanese government), the people in the village get electricity, The Brazilian government gets a few more votes. Everybody is happy and greenhouse emissions are reduced.

Your problem is that you've been unable to break out of the jargon of the global warming deniers who let your grandchildren choke and die for a short-term profit today.

Let's be a leader, let's develop made in Canada solutions, made in Canada technology, and provide this to the rest of the world, instead of providing billions of dollars to other countries with no accountability back. That I could support, and I suspect most of the right wing could as well.

So you fully support the NDP Kyoto plan then? You didn't even read it, did you? You never even considered looking at all of the supporting documentation. You were too busy thanking people like badboy, who got their facts from an Exxon-sponsored Republican talking points memo and are referring to articles they either didn't read or were incapable of understanding.

 

[bluealberta]

+ I hear global warming is a myth, there was an article this week that said the air is cleaner then we thought.

c'mon Rev i'm sure your read it, why not post it for the rest of us.

You mean this one on how we've reduced global dimming and how that reduction will actually cause more global warming because more sunlight is reaching the earth?

I read it. I'm pretty sure you didn't though because it contradicts your point.

Rev, please tell me how sending money to another country to purchase "credits" will reduce Canadian emissions.

It doesn't. What it does do is decrease global emissions. We're dealing with a global problem, not a Canadian one. I've used this example before, but apparently you still haven't read the Kyoto thread and all of the links in it, so I'll go over it again. This is a real life example.

Brazil has met it's targets. Japan has not. There is a town in Brazil that has two problems...a large garbage dump and no electricity. Brazil has no reason to do anything about the dump because they've met their targets, but it would be nice for the village to have electricity. Running power from the grid is insanely expensive though.

In steps Japan. They have the technology to capture methane (a greenhouse gas) escaping from the dump and using that gas to create electricity. So they get credits from Brazil for installing that technology in the village. People in Japan get jobs, the corporation that owns the technology turns a profit (paid for by the Japanese government), the people in the village get electricity, The Brazilian government gets a few more votes. Everybody is happy and greenhouse emissions are reduced.

Your problem is that you've been unable to break out of the jargon of the global warming deniers who let your grandchildren choke and die for a short-term profit today.

Let's be a leader, let's develop made in Canada solutions, made in Canada technology, and provide this to the rest of the world, instead of providing billions of dollars to other countries with no accountability back. That I could support, and I suspect most of the right wing could as well.

So you fully support the NDP Kyoto plan then? You didn't even read it, did you? You never even considered looking at all of the supporting documentation. You were too busy thanking people like badboy, who got their facts from an Exxon-sponsored Republican talking points memo and are referring to articles they either didn't read or were incapable of understanding.

If you can possibly get past the insults, maybe you could see the fallacy of Canada providing funds to Brazil to pay Japan for technology. You simply make my point: Canada can and should develop Canadian technology for Brazil. Your scenario means "People in Japan get jobs, the corporation that owns the technology turns a profit (paid for by the Japanese government), the people in the village get electricity, The Brazilian government gets a few more votes. "
Why we in Canada care about Brazilian government getting votes is a little odd. Why we care about people in Japan getting jobs is counterproductive to Canadians getting jobs, and why cannot a Canadian corporation create jobs and turn a profit. Thank you for supporting my premise.

 

[zenfisher]

I think your missing the point. Brazil & Japan are used as an example. Canada would get the benefits if they provided the technology to Brazil.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: How will a Conservative government be better?

I think your missing the point. Brazil & Japan are used as an example. Canada would get the benefits if they provided the technology to Brazil.

I agree if the Kyoto plan was to take the money and use it to develop this technology. That is simply not the case, the plan says that we will use this money to buy credit from other countries, so they can use the money to buy the technology. The Liberal plan means we will not use it to develop technology, but will simply provide funds to other countries to buy the technology from other countries. This is pure and simple a wealth transfer scheme, with no benefits to Canada. Our emissions are less than 2% of the worlds total emissions, so the Rev is right when he says in his opinion it is not a Canadian emission issue, but a global issue. However, I must ask if this is not a Canadian emission issue as the Rev says, why are we the country with the highest emission targets?

 

[zenfisher]

That would be providing Canada is capable of meeting its targets. Canada is a long way from meeting those targets, they wold need the credits. 2% for a country with the population of Canada is huge.

 

[Scape]

Re: RE: How will a Conservative government be better?

However, I must ask if this is not a Canadian emission issue as the Rev says, why are we the country with the highest emission targets?

We are the richest and lowest population density. Our lifestyle is just as wasteful as the USA per capita yet we only make 2% of the waste. Your comparing the 2nd largest country with a population of only 32 million vs China the 4th largest and most 1.2 billion. That 2% of the worlds total emissions is not in respect to our wealth vs population.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: How will a Conservative government be better?

That would be providing Canada is capable of meeting its targets. Canada is a long way from meeting those targets, they wold need the credits. 2% for a country with the population of Canada is huge.

You miss the point. 2% of the worlds emissions is virtually nothing!If Canada totally shut down tomorrow, the total worlds emissions would be reduced by less than 2%. The reality is Canada is a big cold country that relies on energy to provide heat and transportation. I would much prefer that we spend our money to develop alternate energy sources and technology to make our country more efficient concerning emissions.

What would we do with "credits"? How would buying imaginary "credits" reduce our emissions? Would it not be better to use the "credit" buying money to develop technology to reduce our own emissions? Buying credits does not reduce our emissions at all.

 

[Reverend Blair]

If you can possibly get past the insults, maybe you could see the fallacy of Canada providing funds to Brazil to pay Japan for technology.

It was just an example of how the credits really work, Blue. Since it's a real world example I didn't substitute the names of countries. Canada also has technology that can be provided for credits.

The Liberals haven't done a good job on Kyoto, so what? Do you support the NDP plan then? Have you read it? Have you read the supporting documentation?

That is simply not the case, the plan says that we will use this money to buy credit from other countries, so they can use the money to buy the technology.

They buy the technology from us, Blue. That's the point.

This is pure and simple a wealth transfer scheme, with no benefits to Canada.

Seeing how our north is already melting and the ice caps are disappearing from the Rockie Mountains, there are plenty of benefits in reducing worldwide emissions.

Our emissions are less than 2% of the worlds total emissions,

We have about 0.0006% of the world's total population. For us to be producing 2% of of emissions is embarrassing.

However, I must ask if this is not a Canadian emission issue as the Rev says, why are we the country with the highest emission targets?

See above.

 

[zenfisher]

If Canada is creating 2% of the total emmissions compared to what 170 ...180 countries.That is a big deal cold or not. The "credits" mean that we would be creating jobs and producing for other countries to help them reduce their emissions. Canada would profit from the sale of the technologies to countries that otherwise would not be able to afford the technologies and would continue producing green house gases. That's the small picture.

The big picture is everything we do to decrease emissions will benefit all of us in the long run.

 

[bluealberta]

If you can possibly get past the insults, maybe you could see the fallacy of Canada providing funds to Brazil to pay Japan for technology.

It was just an example of how the credits really work, Blue. Since it's a real world example I didn't substitute the names of countries. Canada also has technology that can be provided for credits.

The Liberals haven't done a good job on Kyoto, so what? Do you support the NDP plan then? Have you read it? Have you read the supporting documentation?

That is simply not the case, the plan says that we will use this money to buy credit from other countries, so they can use the money to buy the technology.

They buy the technology from us, Blue. That's the point.

How are we going to produce the technology without the money? Or will this be another tax policy over and above the $10billion? So are you saying that we will give other countries money to turn around and buy back our technology? Gee, sounds like another LIbrano money laundering scheme.

This is pure and simple a wealth transfer scheme, with no benefits to Canada.

Seeing how our north is already melting and the ice caps are disappearing from the Rockie Mountains, there are plenty of benefits in reducing worldwide emissions.

Even assuming I accept your premise, this scheme will not provide benefits.

Our emissions are less than 2% of the worlds total emissions,

We have about 0.0006% of the world's total population. For us to be producing 2% of of emissions is embarrassing.

We are a cold, big country. That is the reality of Canada. Transportation costs for our goods for a country this large are immense. Heating costs for a country with a 4 - 5 month winter are unavoidable and large. Here is another little example. The government has taken out rail lines to many communities in the Prairies. Being from Sask and Man, I expect you will know this. This has forced more trucks on the road to get farm products to the market. This leads to more fuel consumption than before, more stress on our road system than before. Most paved roads are made with oil based products, meaning that creation of new roads, improvement of existing roads, and repairs of existing roads causes more oil based products to be used. I would suspect that these increases do nothing to reduce emissions.

However, I must ask if this is not a Canadian emission issue as the Rev says, why are we the country with the highest emission targets?

See above.

As mentioned earlier, if Canada were to completely shut down, the effect on the entire planet would be minimal. Yet the majority of emissions producing countries have not signed on to this treaty, and the US is focussed on making a made in the US solution, similar to what I propose. Basically, you want Canada to pay the cost for all the non-emitting countries, something I find rather distasteful. As I said, this sounds like another Liberano money laundering scheme in addition to a wealth transfer scheme.

And if you do not agree with the US/Iraq situation, how do you rationalize our country siging a treaty which forces the Kyoto viewpoint on other countries who want nothing to do with it? Or mabe these other countries are pretty smart, they have huge emissions, and get the Kyoto treaty countries to pay for their clean up. Hell of a deal.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: How will a Conservati

Not only that, but it produces jobs in places that are short on them. Two alternative fuel plants (one ethanol and one bio-diesel, I think) are being in Saskatchewan. We've got at least one of each going up here in Manitoba as well.

Manitoba will be building another dam to produce electricity for Ontario. An east-west grid will be built to carry that electricity.

Manitoba just opened its first wind farm. Similar projects are happening in Saskatchewan and Alberta.

Manitoba has plans to become a leading producer of hydrogen fuel. Making hydrogen requires water and electricity...we have both in abundance.

Those are all projects in rural/northern areas where economic diversification is badly needed.

There is also a place here in Winnipeg that is developing a delivery system for hydrogen fuel. I can't remember the name of the company, but I was there almost two years ago to photograph the thing. It looks very much like a self-serve gas pump.

Those are just things off the top of my head. they don't include increased home renos and retail sales of windows, doors, insulation, vapour barriers, etc. All that and we don't even have a real plan yet.

Denying that we are benefitting economically from Kyoto is simply not true. Such statements are nothing more than propaganda from those with a vested interest in the oil industry.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: How will a Conservati

Your last post was just silly, Blue.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: How will a Conservati

Not only that, but it produces jobs in places that are short on them. Two alternative fuel plants (one ethanol and one bio-diesel, I think) are being in Saskatchewan. We've got at least one of each going up here in Manitoba as well.

Manitoba will be building another dam to produce electricity for Ontario. An east-west grid will be built to carry that electricity.

Manitoba just opened its first wind farm. Similar projects are happening in Saskatchewan and Alberta.

Manitoba has plans to become a leading producer of hydrogen fuel. Making hydrogen requires water and electricity...we have both in abundance.

Those are all projects in rural/northern areas where economic diversification is badly needed.

There is also a place here in Winnipeg that is developing a delivery system for hydrogen fuel. I can't remember the name of the company, but I was there almost two years ago to photograph the thing. It looks very much like a self-serve gas pump.

Those are just things off the top of my head. they don't include increased home renos and retail sales of windows, doors, insulation, vapour barriers, etc. All that and we don't even have a real plan yet.

Denying that we are benefitting economically from Kyoto is simply not true. Such statements are nothing more than propaganda from those with a vested interest in the oil industry.

I have no vested interest.

Alberta has had wind farms for a number of years now.

You also make my point even further. Let's continue to produce all these things, and develop what ever future research brings. Giving money to other countries will not develop our technology.

All you mentioned are good things, and things I support. However, how will any of these be used in other countries? What can we sell or give away out of all these things you mention?

I simply maintain let's work on developing the technology we require and the alternate fuel and energy sources we eventually will have. Then Canada may become a world leader in this area, and provide the world with this technology. Keep the money here,provide more jobs to Candians, provide a more diverse tax base for all provinces, and at the same time, use this technology to make our country more efficient.

 

[Cant Take It]

And on the left side, Kyoto, wow, that’s a whopper for anyone that knows how to crunch economic numbers

You'll have to expand on that a bit, Can't Take It. While there will be some short-term costs, the overall outlook for instituting Kyoto is good for the economy. If you know anything about economics at all, you know that the development and introduction of new technologies has always produced wealth. You also know that renovations to install insulation and new windows and doors produces jobs. You know that power production projects like hydro-electric facilities and wind farms produces jobs.

There is also the long-range impact on the economy if we don't do anything about global warming. The insurance is terrified of the impact of more severe weather. Droughts and floods cost our government millions, and will become more and more common as the earth warms. The impact of doing nothing has serious economic implications so the more we can reduce the severity of global warming, the better off we'll be in the future.

Global warming and the Kyoto accord should not be a left-right issue. It shouldn't ever have become politicized. That it has is testament to the unequal power weilded by the oil companies.

I don’t disagree with you Rev, entirely. In the long run new technologies do bring about jobs. But new technologies require training and an adoption period, or worse … potentially re-training a workforce that was decimated from Kyoto reform. One of the arguments against Kyoto has been the short timeline to meet the targeted reductions causing too much of a shock to the countries economy.

I’d like to think our country is versatile enough to recover from such a shock but I’m really not sure it’s necessary to implement it under the suggested timeline, if at all really and I’ll explain why. The Canadian reductions would not have much of an effect in the global totals … many countries are also making that argument and using it to justify non-adoption of the accord, and I don’t blame them. It’s the fact that Kyoto compares emissions on a country by country basis in relation to population. So China, one of the greatest polluters in the world, gets off much easier than Canada because of their population. So we get nailed because we emit more than we should for the amount of people we have … which is nothing to be proud of mind you but you said you were interested in making a real impact on global warming and the reality of it is simply this; Canadian reduction wont make much of an impact on a Global scale because our emissions are miniscule in comparison to other countries. If you wanted to make a difference you have to go to the heart of the problem, stand up to China as a nation, force them to stop burning coal and polluting the environment at an astronomically high rate, then and only then will you see a global impact.

The “short term” hit you talk about “could” cripple oil & gas and manufacturing in this country. Two huge drivers of our economy … that’s a lot of jobs lost. Are you willing to take that risk on so many people’s livelihoods on the hope that new sectors would open up, maybe? I’m finding it tough with three kids as it is, I’m not really interested in making it a whole lot more difficult on my family. So I suppose if I have a hidden agenda, my family would be it. I want to bring about environmental change but lets do it right … lets support a plan that will target the major offenders in the world before we take risks with our own economy.

In any rate my intent of that comment was not to throw this thread into another direction, we should start a Kyoto thread for that one. I believe this was about whether or not the conservatives would be better in running the show. I really don’t know that they will to be honest but I think the liberal party (or any party that engages in this activity) and the offending individuals should start getting punished for this behavior … yes, you just heard an Albertan say they really don’t know if the conservatives will make a difference. However, they are the party that is taking the most about government reform … if the liberals want to retain at least a minority government they should jump all over that issue. Someone has got to fix this mess.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Giving money to other countries will not develop our technology.

A lot of it is, and will continue to be, tied up in foreign aid and trade deals. The spin offs run to other technologies and sectors (wind power and alternative fuels have been closely tied with agriculture and all of the equipment related to it, for instance).

A lot of it will have a pay-off in the future. It is not immediate. If India decides to buy tidal generators from us in 2015 though, is that not still a benefit? If China adopts hydrogen power for it's cars in 2012 and buys Ballard fuel cells, is that not a benefit?

It goes further than that too. If African nations decide on wind generation in 2050, is that not a benefit? If the US buys our hydrogen fuel (produced on the shores of Hudson's Bay) in 2060, is that not a benefit?

Every nation I've mentioned, except the USA, presently lacks any suitable infrastructure for fuel delivery for cars, electricity production and transfer, etc.

China doesn't care whether it's energy comes from oil or hydrogen...they are importing it either way. They haven't got millions of gas stations that will have to switch over. Who do you think they will turn to for the knowledge of how to build that infrastructure? It can be Europe, or it can be us. Do you want to be left behind?

So our government funds a bit now, and we reap the rewards now and later. In the meantime we clean up our own act.


That's not even getting into the money that we can save. What if you could cut your heating bill by 2/3's? What if you could cut the amount you spend on transport by 50%? Depending on your house and what you drive, those are very real possibilities with existing technologies. Here is the real kicker...most of those technologies are things like in-line water heaters, insulation on your hot-water pipes, insulation in your walls and floors, vapour barriers...all really basic stuff.

You don't have to do it all right away. When your water heater pisses all over the basement floor though, don't just go buy a new version of the same old thing. Think about this for a minute. How often do you use not water? You have a shower in the morning, you wash some dishes after supper. All day while you are at work, your water heater is costing you money to keep somewhere between 20 and 40 gallons of water hot.

Even with that, you are always running out of hot water. The wife has shower, then you hop in and it's okay at first but just when you go to rinse the soap off your balls suddenly the water is ice cold. You are paying extra for that.

Now consider an in-line heater. It heats the water on demand. You don't have to pay for it to heat water while you are at work. You don't run out of hot water because it's being heated as you use it, so you'll never get that icy spray on your nuts again.

That's Kyoto...save money, be more comfortable.