P.M. Martin - letting big polluters off Kyoto obligations

Karlin

Council Member
Jun 27, 2004
1,275
2
38
Re: P.M. Martin - letting big polluters off Kyoto obligation

quotes:[peapod , Just the Facts]
"If electric cars were ready available, I would buy one.
Until we stop buying [... ] . WE are responsible.
Oh yeah the diabolical SUV. Singularly the worst thing to happen to the environment since the muscle cars of the sixties."

Thanks for those replies.
I had an SUV. I admit it.
It was a conundrum for me, because it was GIVEN to me. I hated them though. It would be so disrespectfull to give it back, and I was poor, so I figured if I drove it instead of someone else, it would do less harm, by not using it much and keeping it tuned up, drive it slowly, esp. uphill.

Hmmm. Sounds like a load eh?

Anyways, I did drive it for a year, and finally sold it. It is likely doing more harm now, but I just couldn't take it anymore, I really felt like crap when I was in it. I did. Peapod would too.
The luxury meant for rich people, Elitism bothered me too. Badly, since I was poor.

Interestingly, I got more parking tickets, was hit on for change a lot more, and was a target of vandalism, but not in my little Pony I have now. I was poor, as I said, and not usually subject to the tortures of the wealthy. Awwww, but they really do get it from all sides. They feel it, they know the world is at their door, and if it gets worse, they will knock it down..

This sytem isn't great for a lot of people. Equality is a big part of freedom too. I think it would be better to reign in industry and give the workers more of the pie. Of course. We all do, almost.

You said WE are responsible, and I want to hope so. There sure is a lot we could do. I stopped buying a lot of things as a protest. I know it wont make any difference unless a lot more people were doing it, but I decided "for my personal kharma", my conscience, I would be the greenest I could be.

Buying NEW vehicles is where the buck has to stop. Thats how I decided I could feel okay about my SUV experience I suppose!

But there are still so many people buying those planet killers, it feels hopeless sometimes. If they just didn't buy a new vehicle until it was a responsible one, I bet there would be lots of alternative fuel cars on the market in two years.
right now, All the electric cars and Hydrogen cars are back ordered - they could sell them; they are not making them fast enough. They don't intend to, it really IS a conspiracy, both automakers and oilmen are just doing too well to let it go. Oil is the currency of the Elites and BushCO, their empires might weaken if it were any other way.

Government wont regulate the auto-makers, although this sure looks like an area where government SHOULD get in the way. Public health, climate change, and personal choice are all areas of government purvue,and the vehicles are a major factor for those problems.
...because government is "run" by industry. From candidate nominations to the committees where things get done, industry has "their men in every position". Its true, they are everywhere. To Wit: McKenna is an industry man going to cozy up to the Americans ; and that BC MP, Frank McKenna [thanks Reverend!]who quickly made minister under Paul Martin, PM, and Efford who we mentioned earlier.

So WE have more to do than change our habits. We have a TON of work to do to change the way government is chosen. At this point, we usually throw up our hands. Public willingness will be shown by Canadians electing another type of government first, and I would think that is the NDP. They are likely the same, in similiar traps, but it is a signal for change, and THEY could change the way government is chosen.

Thats my hope for now. Other times, I am hopeless anymore. Its almost to late to do anything about Global Warming, the "cascade effects" are allready starting. But thats another topic [ask me].

Karlin
 

Karlin

Council Member
Jun 27, 2004
1,275
2
38
Re: P.M. Martin - letting big polluters off Kyoto obligation

quotes:[peapod , Just the Facts]
"If electric cars were ready available, I would buy one.
Until we stop buying [... ] . WE are responsible.
Oh yeah the diabolical SUV. Singularly the worst thing to happen to the environment since the muscle cars of the sixties."

Thanks for those replies.
I had an SUV. I admit it.
It was a conundrum for me, because it was GIVEN to me. I hated them though. It would be so disrespectfull to give it back, and I was poor, so I figured if I drove it instead of someone else, it would do less harm, by not using it much and keeping it tuned up, drive it slowly, esp. uphill.

Hmmm. Sounds like a load eh?

Anyways, I did drive it for a year, and finally sold it. It is likely doing more harm now, but I just couldn't take it anymore, I really felt like crap when I was in it. I did. Peapod would too.
The luxury meant for rich people, Elitism bothered me too. Badly, since I was poor.

Interestingly, I got more parking tickets, was hit on for change a lot more, and was a target of vandalism, but not in my little Pony I have now. I was poor, as I said, and not usually subject to the tortures of the wealthy. Awwww, but they really do get it from all sides. They feel it, they know the world is at their door, and if it gets worse, they will knock it down..

This sytem isn't great for a lot of people. Equality is a big part of freedom too. I think it would be better to reign in industry and give the workers more of the pie. Of course. We all do, almost.

You said WE are responsible, and I want to hope so. There sure is a lot we could do. I stopped buying a lot of things as a protest. I know it wont make any difference unless a lot more people were doing it, but I decided "for my personal kharma", my conscience, I would be the greenest I could be.

Buying NEW vehicles is where the buck has to stop. Thats how I decided I could feel okay about my SUV experience I suppose!

But there are still so many people buying those planet killers, it feels hopeless sometimes. If they just didn't buy a new vehicle until it was a responsible one, I bet there would be lots of alternative fuel cars on the market in two years.
right now, All the electric cars and Hydrogen cars are back ordered - they could sell them; they are not making them fast enough. They don't intend to, it really IS a conspiracy, both automakers and oilmen are just doing too well to let it go. Oil is the currency of the Elites and BushCO, their empires might weaken if it were any other way.

Government wont regulate the auto-makers, although this sure looks like an area where government SHOULD get in the way. Public health, climate change, and personal choice are all areas of government purvue,and the vehicles are a major factor for those problems.
...because government is "run" by industry. From candidate nominations to the committees where things get done, industry has "their men in every position". Its true, they are everywhere. To Wit: McKenna is an industry man going to cozy up to the Americans ; and that BC MP, Frank McKenna [thanks Reverend!]who quickly made minister under Paul Martin, PM, and Efford who we mentioned earlier.

So WE have more to do than change our habits. We have a TON of work to do to change the way government is chosen. At this point, we usually throw up our hands. Public willingness will be shown by Canadians electing another type of government first, and I would think that is the NDP. They are likely the same, in similiar traps, but it is a signal for change, and THEY could change the way government is chosen.

Thats my hope for now. Other times, I am hopeless anymore. Its almost to late to do anything about Global Warming, the "cascade effects" are allready starting. But thats another topic [ask me].

Karlin
 

LadyC

Time Out
Sep 3, 2004
1,340
0
36
the left coast
RE: P.M. Martin - letting big polluters off Kyoto obligation

30 years ago the alarmists were warning about a cooling trend.

Weather changes and temperature fluctuates. It's a fact. My home town floods every 20 years or so, with every 2nd one being serious. They're due for a small one soon. :)

That said, I do believe we need to be more responsible and cut back our pollution. That means buying products with less packaging, walking or car-pooling as much as possible and recycling everything we can.

Kyoto may not be perfect but it's a start.
 

LadyC

Time Out
Sep 3, 2004
1,340
0
36
the left coast
RE: P.M. Martin - letting big polluters off Kyoto obligation

30 years ago the alarmists were warning about a cooling trend.

Weather changes and temperature fluctuates. It's a fact. My home town floods every 20 years or so, with every 2nd one being serious. They're due for a small one soon. :)

That said, I do believe we need to be more responsible and cut back our pollution. That means buying products with less packaging, walking or car-pooling as much as possible and recycling everything we can.

Kyoto may not be perfect but it's a start.
 

LadyC

Time Out
Sep 3, 2004
1,340
0
36
the left coast
RE: P.M. Martin - letting big polluters off Kyoto obligation

30 years ago the alarmists were warning about a cooling trend.

Weather changes and temperature fluctuates. It's a fact. My home town floods every 20 years or so, with every 2nd one being serious. They're due for a small one soon. :)

That said, I do believe we need to be more responsible and cut back our pollution. That means buying products with less packaging, walking or car-pooling as much as possible and recycling everything we can.

Kyoto may not be perfect but it's a start.
 

peapod

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2004
10,745
0
36
pumpkin pie bungalow
Re: P.M. Martin - letting big polluters off Kyoto obligation

I enjoyed that post karlin. I am sure your karma will be alright now that you have come clean about owing a SUV, redemption is a wonderful thing :p
 

peapod

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2004
10,745
0
36
pumpkin pie bungalow
Re: P.M. Martin - letting big polluters off Kyoto obligation

I enjoyed that post karlin. I am sure your karma will be alright now that you have come clean about owing a SUV, redemption is a wonderful thing :p
 

peapod

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2004
10,745
0
36
pumpkin pie bungalow
Re: P.M. Martin - letting big polluters off Kyoto obligation

I enjoyed that post karlin. I am sure your karma will be alright now that you have come clean about owing a SUV, redemption is a wonderful thing :p
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
RE: P.M. Martin - letting

It doesn't take long for vehicles to work their way through the food-chain anymore, Karlin. I wouldn't feel bad about owning a used SUV depending on the circumstances.

Hell, I bought one a while ago...a 2wd chevy blazer. I wanted something better on gas than the big green truck, but still needed to haul stuff for work. In that case it would have been an improvement.

In the spirit of reduce, reuse, recycle, I bought an old one and was going to fix it. Then I found out that the safety regulations had changed so it would have to be fixed properly (welding instead of rivets, pre-made body-parts instead of old washing-machine metal, no spray-foam insulation allowed) so the idea became cost-prohibitive. Putting $2000 into an $800 vehicle doesn't make much sense. Eventually I ended up with the Dodge that's in the driveway right now.

That's the thing though. There has always been a call for SUVs and trucks. They've existed in one form or another for ever. The big difference now is that people who don't need them buy them because of the marketing.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
RE: P.M. Martin - letting

It doesn't take long for vehicles to work their way through the food-chain anymore, Karlin. I wouldn't feel bad about owning a used SUV depending on the circumstances.

Hell, I bought one a while ago...a 2wd chevy blazer. I wanted something better on gas than the big green truck, but still needed to haul stuff for work. In that case it would have been an improvement.

In the spirit of reduce, reuse, recycle, I bought an old one and was going to fix it. Then I found out that the safety regulations had changed so it would have to be fixed properly (welding instead of rivets, pre-made body-parts instead of old washing-machine metal, no spray-foam insulation allowed) so the idea became cost-prohibitive. Putting $2000 into an $800 vehicle doesn't make much sense. Eventually I ended up with the Dodge that's in the driveway right now.

That's the thing though. There has always been a call for SUVs and trucks. They've existed in one form or another for ever. The big difference now is that people who don't need them buy them because of the marketing.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
RE: P.M. Martin - letting

It doesn't take long for vehicles to work their way through the food-chain anymore, Karlin. I wouldn't feel bad about owning a used SUV depending on the circumstances.

Hell, I bought one a while ago...a 2wd chevy blazer. I wanted something better on gas than the big green truck, but still needed to haul stuff for work. In that case it would have been an improvement.

In the spirit of reduce, reuse, recycle, I bought an old one and was going to fix it. Then I found out that the safety regulations had changed so it would have to be fixed properly (welding instead of rivets, pre-made body-parts instead of old washing-machine metal, no spray-foam insulation allowed) so the idea became cost-prohibitive. Putting $2000 into an $800 vehicle doesn't make much sense. Eventually I ended up with the Dodge that's in the driveway right now.

That's the thing though. There has always been a call for SUVs and trucks. They've existed in one form or another for ever. The big difference now is that people who don't need them buy them because of the marketing.
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
Re: RE: P.M. Martin - letting

Reverend Blair said:
Automobiles are our worst source of pollution. We've designed our whole society around them. The auto manufacturers have a long history of not doing anything until they are forced to. They screamed that seatbelts would bankrupt them, cried for a decade about the cost of catalytic convertors, and have fought CAFE legislation every step of the way. Unless somebody passes a law telling them to build cleaner cars or the CEO is going to prison, they won't do it.

I thought I read somewhere that automobiles represented only 25% of the pollution generated?

Any one else read that?

I must agree though, against my own better judgment that legislation may be the only way to solve the auto pollution problem. I believe we vote with our wallets but you can't buy what isn't offered. Canada I hear has invented a new enzyme that allows for straw, hay and other types of crops to be converted to ethanol much easier. That’s good news, as I for one believe alcohol will be a driving force (pun intended) in the near future. Cars etc are easily converted to burn alcohol and we already burn up to 15% alcohol in today’s gases.

I'm willing to bet ingenuity will solve our problems before legislation, but who knows. We do have unleaded gasoline for instance.
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
Re: RE: P.M. Martin - letting

Reverend Blair said:
Automobiles are our worst source of pollution. We've designed our whole society around them. The auto manufacturers have a long history of not doing anything until they are forced to. They screamed that seatbelts would bankrupt them, cried for a decade about the cost of catalytic convertors, and have fought CAFE legislation every step of the way. Unless somebody passes a law telling them to build cleaner cars or the CEO is going to prison, they won't do it.

I thought I read somewhere that automobiles represented only 25% of the pollution generated?

Any one else read that?

I must agree though, against my own better judgment that legislation may be the only way to solve the auto pollution problem. I believe we vote with our wallets but you can't buy what isn't offered. Canada I hear has invented a new enzyme that allows for straw, hay and other types of crops to be converted to ethanol much easier. That’s good news, as I for one believe alcohol will be a driving force (pun intended) in the near future. Cars etc are easily converted to burn alcohol and we already burn up to 15% alcohol in today’s gases.

I'm willing to bet ingenuity will solve our problems before legislation, but who knows. We do have unleaded gasoline for instance.
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
Re: RE: P.M. Martin - letting

Reverend Blair said:
Automobiles are our worst source of pollution. We've designed our whole society around them. The auto manufacturers have a long history of not doing anything until they are forced to. They screamed that seatbelts would bankrupt them, cried for a decade about the cost of catalytic convertors, and have fought CAFE legislation every step of the way. Unless somebody passes a law telling them to build cleaner cars or the CEO is going to prison, they won't do it.

I thought I read somewhere that automobiles represented only 25% of the pollution generated?

Any one else read that?

I must agree though, against my own better judgment that legislation may be the only way to solve the auto pollution problem. I believe we vote with our wallets but you can't buy what isn't offered. Canada I hear has invented a new enzyme that allows for straw, hay and other types of crops to be converted to ethanol much easier. That’s good news, as I for one believe alcohol will be a driving force (pun intended) in the near future. Cars etc are easily converted to burn alcohol and we already burn up to 15% alcohol in today’s gases.

I'm willing to bet ingenuity will solve our problems before legislation, but who knows. We do have unleaded gasoline for instance.
 

LadyC

Time Out
Sep 3, 2004
1,340
0
36
the left coast
RE: P.M. Martin - letting big polluters off Kyoto obligation

The Rev said:
That's the thing though. There has always been a call for SUVs and trucks. They've existed in one form or another for ever. The big difference now is that people who don't need them buy them because of the marketing.
Why a family of 4 needs a mini-van is beyond comprehension. They're great for car-pooling, sure, but for every day use?

And why is it that city folk feel a need for an off-road pick-up? I think there should be an extra fee for a truck with no dirt on the tires.

A shiny truck should be an object of ridicule. ;)
 

LadyC

Time Out
Sep 3, 2004
1,340
0
36
the left coast
RE: P.M. Martin - letting big polluters off Kyoto obligation

The Rev said:
That's the thing though. There has always been a call for SUVs and trucks. They've existed in one form or another for ever. The big difference now is that people who don't need them buy them because of the marketing.
Why a family of 4 needs a mini-van is beyond comprehension. They're great for car-pooling, sure, but for every day use?

And why is it that city folk feel a need for an off-road pick-up? I think there should be an extra fee for a truck with no dirt on the tires.

A shiny truck should be an object of ridicule. ;)
 

LadyC

Time Out
Sep 3, 2004
1,340
0
36
the left coast
RE: P.M. Martin - letting big polluters off Kyoto obligation

The Rev said:
That's the thing though. There has always been a call for SUVs and trucks. They've existed in one form or another for ever. The big difference now is that people who don't need them buy them because of the marketing.
Why a family of 4 needs a mini-van is beyond comprehension. They're great for car-pooling, sure, but for every day use?

And why is it that city folk feel a need for an off-road pick-up? I think there should be an extra fee for a truck with no dirt on the tires.

A shiny truck should be an object of ridicule. ;)
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
Re: P.M. Martin - letting big polluters off Kyoto obligation

A shiny truck should be an object of ridicule.

I know at least one person who doesn't like driving his SUV on gravel roads because of stone chips in the paint. 8O

Why a family of 4 needs a mini-van is beyond comprehension.

I don't get it either, but what I find far more baffling is why somebody would want an SUV just to drive the kids to soccer. Ill-handling, gas-guzzling, rough-riding and expensive. It makes no sense to me at all.

I thought I read somewhere that automobiles represented only 25% of the pollution generated?

Any one else read that?

It's still the largest single source and that doesn't take into account the energy spent in producing the energy. We burn relatively clean and efficient natural gas to get oil out of the tar sands, for instance. We already have the technology to run cars on natural gas though. It's bizarre behaviour.

Canada I hear has invented a new enzyme that allows for straw, hay and other types of crops to be converted to ethanol much easier. That’s good news, as I for one believe alcohol will be a driving force (pun intended) in the near future. Cars etc are easily converted to burn alcohol and we already burn up to 15% alcohol in today’s gases.

That enzyme enables the use of waste material. Where ethanol was previously dependent on the actual food portion of the crop (the actual corn, for instance) the enzyme allows the corn stalk to be fermented into alcohol now. The waste is suitable as animal feed and/or fertilizer and the corn (or wheat or whatever) is still available as a food crop. The government should be pushing this technology through subsidies, tax breaks, and legislation; but instead they subsidize the oil companies.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
Re: P.M. Martin - letting big polluters off Kyoto obligation

A shiny truck should be an object of ridicule.

I know at least one person who doesn't like driving his SUV on gravel roads because of stone chips in the paint. 8O

Why a family of 4 needs a mini-van is beyond comprehension.

I don't get it either, but what I find far more baffling is why somebody would want an SUV just to drive the kids to soccer. Ill-handling, gas-guzzling, rough-riding and expensive. It makes no sense to me at all.

I thought I read somewhere that automobiles represented only 25% of the pollution generated?

Any one else read that?

It's still the largest single source and that doesn't take into account the energy spent in producing the energy. We burn relatively clean and efficient natural gas to get oil out of the tar sands, for instance. We already have the technology to run cars on natural gas though. It's bizarre behaviour.

Canada I hear has invented a new enzyme that allows for straw, hay and other types of crops to be converted to ethanol much easier. That’s good news, as I for one believe alcohol will be a driving force (pun intended) in the near future. Cars etc are easily converted to burn alcohol and we already burn up to 15% alcohol in today’s gases.

That enzyme enables the use of waste material. Where ethanol was previously dependent on the actual food portion of the crop (the actual corn, for instance) the enzyme allows the corn stalk to be fermented into alcohol now. The waste is suitable as animal feed and/or fertilizer and the corn (or wheat or whatever) is still available as a food crop. The government should be pushing this technology through subsidies, tax breaks, and legislation; but instead they subsidize the oil companies.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
Re: P.M. Martin - letting big polluters off Kyoto obligation

A shiny truck should be an object of ridicule.

I know at least one person who doesn't like driving his SUV on gravel roads because of stone chips in the paint. 8O

Why a family of 4 needs a mini-van is beyond comprehension.

I don't get it either, but what I find far more baffling is why somebody would want an SUV just to drive the kids to soccer. Ill-handling, gas-guzzling, rough-riding and expensive. It makes no sense to me at all.

I thought I read somewhere that automobiles represented only 25% of the pollution generated?

Any one else read that?

It's still the largest single source and that doesn't take into account the energy spent in producing the energy. We burn relatively clean and efficient natural gas to get oil out of the tar sands, for instance. We already have the technology to run cars on natural gas though. It's bizarre behaviour.

Canada I hear has invented a new enzyme that allows for straw, hay and other types of crops to be converted to ethanol much easier. That’s good news, as I for one believe alcohol will be a driving force (pun intended) in the near future. Cars etc are easily converted to burn alcohol and we already burn up to 15% alcohol in today’s gases.

That enzyme enables the use of waste material. Where ethanol was previously dependent on the actual food portion of the crop (the actual corn, for instance) the enzyme allows the corn stalk to be fermented into alcohol now. The waste is suitable as animal feed and/or fertilizer and the corn (or wheat or whatever) is still available as a food crop. The government should be pushing this technology through subsidies, tax breaks, and legislation; but instead they subsidize the oil companies.