PM Harper's response to the IPCC report

[Tonington]

I'd say the best government is one which acts on the countries best interests rather than the interests of whatever party it is they hail from and as such there is no best government. There are better governments, but that's a matter of whose opinion it is you would ask.

 

[L Gilbert]

I'd say the best government is one which acts on the countries best interests rather than the interests of whatever party it is they hail from and as such there is no best government. There are better governments, but that's a matter of whose opinion it is you would ask.

I'd say the best gov't is a small one with nothing much to do,

 

[Dixie Cup]

OK, I'm going to go out on a limb here - we need to deal first and formost with pollution! Not greenhouse gases or whatever. There, I said it. Polution, I believe, is a much greater threat to health and living than any green house gas at this time.

As for Kyoto, I just don't understand how all the these scientists that proclaim the world is about to implode, can justify carbon trading. To what end? Will someone PLEEEAAASSE explain to me how this can probably be a good thing?? My understanding is that it'll work this way:

Country(company) B is a lesser industrialized country and is allocated X amount of carbon credits (who or what determines the amount, I have no idea). OK, because it has no heavy industrial infrastructure, it doesn't use all it's credits, so it can "sell" the excess to say, Country(company) A who does have a large mfg. structure and have used all of their credits. So, country(company) A buys the excess credits from Country/company B.

How does this decrease the green house gases??? Common sense dictates that it won't. How can it??

Other than country/company A sending all kinds of money to country/company B, which, as a poorer nation/company, is probably good as long as they have a credible government that actually uses the money to the betterment of its people/workers.

How about if we are really serious about reducing "green house gases" we tell country/company A that if they don't reduce their emissions by a certain % within specific timeframes, we fine the hell out of them? How about WE reap some of the benefits of these penatlies by using these fines to invent, improve (whatever) technologies so that we import, donate, whatever to counties/companies like B so THEY won't suffer the consequences from developing more emissions as they grow?? Now that would be just fine with me and it's a progressive, don't 'cha think?? Clearly, my suggestion is simplistic but I guess the point I'm trying to make is some people are going to make a lot of money on this carbon trading thing and you know it ain't going to be us average cats and, in the meantime, nothing (environmentally) is going to change. That's the bottom line. I heard someone say on the radio the other day that Carbon trading will likely become another currency to be bought and sold to the highest bidder - quite apt I might add.

And that's why I believe Kyoto is not worth the paper it's printed on. Cretien must be laughing like hell!!

JMO

 

[Tonington]

OK, I'm going to go out on a limb here - we need to deal first and formost with pollution! Not greenhouse gases or whatever. There, I said it. Polution, I believe, is a much greater threat to health and living than any green house gas at this time.

As for Kyoto, I just don't understand how all the these scientists that proclaim the world is about to implode, can justify carbon trading. To what end? Will someone PLEEEAAASSE explain to me how this can probably be a good thing?? My understanding is that it'll work this way:

Country(company) B is a lesser industrialized country and is allocated X amount of carbon credits (who or what determines the amount, I have no idea). OK, because it has no heavy industrial infrastructure, it doesn't use all it's credits, so it can "sell" the excess to say, Country(company) A who does have a large mfg. structure and have used all of their credits. So, country(company) A buys the excess credits from Country/company B.

How does this decrease the green house gases??? Common sense dictates that it won't. How can it??

Other than country/company A sending all kinds of money to country/company B, which, as a poorer nation/company, is probably good as long as they have a credible government that actually uses the money to the betterment of its people/workers.

How about if we are really serious about reducing "green house gases" we tell country/company A that if they don't reduce their emissions by a certain % within specific timeframes, we fine the hell out of them? How about WE reap some of the benefits of these penatlies by using these fines to invent, improve (whatever) technologies so that we import, donate, whatever to counties/companies like B so THEY won't suffer the consequences from developing more emissions as they grow?? Now that would be just fine with me and it's a progressive, don't 'cha think?? Clearly, my suggestion is simplistic but I guess the point I'm trying to make is some people are going to make a lot of money on this carbon trading thing and you know it ain't going to be us average cats and, in the meantime, nothing (environmentally) is going to change. That's the bottom line. I heard someone say on the radio the other day that Carbon trading will likely become another currency to be bought and sold to the highest bidder - quite apt I might add.

And that's why I believe Kyoto is not worth the paper it's printed on. Cretien must be laughing like hell!!

JMO

You don't consider carbon dioxide a pollutant? Seems if you deal with any pollutants emitted from plants/cars/planes you should deal with them all.

The carbon trading program has been developed by politicians, enough said right. If you concentrate on it's failings it looks very bad, if you try to envision other possibilities it isn't so bad. Perform a forum search on carbon trading, I've given my two cents probably enough times to buy a litre of gasoline.

The decreases from the current mode of operating works by a) planting trees to uptake more carbon, b) paying other countries to use cleaner technology, rather than cheap and dirty technology (screwy aint it?)

Kyoto is an international agreement. With Kyoto there are mechanism which can be used. I think they're lazy, flawed and old. Imposing immediate fines and expecting results is like crossing the street before you look. What do you think a corporations first means of cutting costs would be, if they had to deal with large fines? Would all those unemployed people give a rats @ss about climate change if they have to forclose their home, starve and freeze? The backlash would be more harmful than good. This issue requires keen minds and co-operation. Not only climate scientists, but economists, industry representatives, government officials and the public have to be involved.

 

[Dixie Cup]

You don't consider carbon dioxide a pollutant?

No, I don't.

JMO

 

[Tonington]

May I ask why you don't consider carbon dioxide a pollutant?

 

[Vicious]

Isn't it oxygen for plants? Do you consider oxygen a pollutant?

 

[Tonington]

Isn't it oxygen for plants? Do you consider oxygen a pollutant?

It's not oxygen for plants, oxygen is oxygen for plants. Specifically carbon dioxide is used in both dark and light reactions of photosynthesis as an electron donor, which is used intracellularly for nutrient transport. The photon strikes the pigment and that sends an electron down the electron transport chain. The cell needs to replace that electron, and generally they use either organic souces of carbon or inorganic sources of carbon. Cyanide is also used by some organisms for metabolic processes and I'll bet no one would argue releasing cyanide does not count as pollution. Whether or not the compound released is natural or not, a pollutant is the result of any man-made activity which:
a) causes harm to the environment when it mixes with soil, water or air
b) adversely alters the chemical, physical or biological properties of the environment
c) adversely affects the health of animals, plants and eco-system

 

[CDNBear]

I'll have to go with Dixie and vicious here tonnington...

As I have said before, we need a plan that addresses all polution and all the underlying causes thereof.

Deforestation is in my opinion a MAJOR contributer to the global warming issue. But the polution of land and sea, are accutely detrimental to all life. Global warming will be a slow painful death, we need swift treatment, but the accute effects of contaminents in ground water and soil, are far more effective at killing off the populous in the emediate future, then a rise in climbs.

 

[Tonington]

I'll have to go with Dixie and vicious here tonnington...

As I have said before, we need a plan that addresses all polution and all the underlying causes thereof.

Deforestation is in my opinion a MAJOR contributer to the global warming issue. But the polution of land and sea, are accutely detrimental to all life. Global warming will be a slow painful death, we need swift treatment, but the accute effects of contaminents in ground water and soil, are far more effective at killing off the populous in the emediate future, then a rise in climbs.

I also believe we need to address pollution. I'm only saying that if we're going to address pollution why not all of it. Why select only one pollutant, or select some and not the other equally harmful ones? Manure is beneficial too until there is too much. It's more than just carbon dioxide being pumped out of factories, cars, airplanes, trains. Wherever you find pollution it has to be dealt with. On that I'm in complete agreeance. Just because it's a greenhouse gas doesn't mean it isn't also a pollutant.

It kinda reminds me of fishermen's glib regard for throwing trash over board. They only throw the small stuff right? Sure in some cases they throw big trash, but what happens when you accept even a little bit? You get things like that garbage cyclone in the Pacific, I know we can't blame it all on fishermen, perhaps we're all to glib. Like a little bit isn't going to hurt that much....

 

[L Gilbert]

Um, quoting myself:
Now that CO² has had doubt cast on it as a GHG, I feel compelled to give a list of a few other GHGs:

nitrous oxide,
methane,
hydrofluorocarbons,
hydrogen,
VOCs (volatile organic compounds like vaporizing fuel, incomplete combustion of fuel, alcohols, aldehydes, organic acids, biomass burning, etc.)
carbon tetrachloride,
carbon tetrafluoride,
oarbon monoxide,
ozone,
methyl chloroform,
perfluoroethane,
sulfur hexafluoride,
trifluoromethyl
sulfur pentafluoride,

and there are more. Um, one might note that only a few of those are also emitted naturally and some don't exist normally in nature at all.

Then there are all the other things that don't exist naturally in the environment and we've added them all and there are thousands of them and I betcha not many are beneficial to the environment.

 

[Dixie Cup]

Carbon Dioxide is essential for life for heavens sake! Plants thrive on it, we exhale it (but I guess we don't count).

This greenhouse gas business has gone waaayyy beyond what is actually happening in our world and, despite what our politicians and hollywood/presidential types say, the science IS NOT conclusive. Yes, we need clean water, clean air and clean ground period! That's where we need to concentrate and it's pollution that's the culprit.

Quite frankly, it's become a fad; a tool where some people are making a WHOLE lot of money and nothing is really going to change in the end or, alternatively, if something does change, it's going to cost all of us a whole lot of money, while those same people make money and nothing's going to change.

I'm just sayin'......

 

[mabudon]

Who is making all this money everyone is always talking about?? The box-office returns on Gore's film, is THAT where all this phantom bread is getting tossed??

I don't get the argument that someone is somehow getting filthy rich- it suggests that alll the hardworking industries/corporations are getting left out in the cold (no pun intended) and some kind of Eco-villain is siphoning all the money into their own greedy pockets- I can't see that happening in ANY segment of our society really, so could someone expand on this obvious talking point or maybe just abandon it- it really does sound silly, the "THEM" doesn't exist I don't think (much like many other "them"s used in place of actual facts to get folks all whipped up, but that's another topic)

 

[Tonington]

Essential nutrients can still be polluting. Do you know what happens as more carbon dioxide enters the ocenas? The pH drops, and that's harmful for the organisms which have evolved within the relatively stable marine environment.

 

[MikeyDB]

If Stephen Harper or Jack Layton or Stephane Dion or any other politician believed that sasquatch..the yetti...the abominable snowman ...was an issue of interest in the pulse of Canadians you can bet they'd jump on that wagon when the polls confirmed there was progress to be made in some way for some party or some elected "representative"....

The whol bunch of them...politicians have failed for decades to address these planet-wide effectors of industrial and social impact on the global atmosphere. Pollution is every bit as big an issue as GHGE and has been for fifty years...

It's only when the moneyed nations and the people scooping up the billions in revenue begin to see that there might be some legitimacy to concerns involving prudent stewardship of the planet that it becomes an issue. And only an issue then in many cases because the economics of climate change and pollution could cost (will cost) these fat cats. For the average industrialist, global warming and pollution are opportunities to make money...no relationship to survival of our species or any other can be allowed to take precedence over greed....

 

[Vicious]

Essential nutrients can still be polluting.

Obviously you and I are operating on different definitions of pollution.

 

[mabudon]

Yes, vicious, yours would be incorrect and Tonington's is much more realistic

You know what happens when too much actual "nutritious" stuff finds its way into a small body of water??

 

[Tonington]

Obviously you and I are operating on different definitions of pollution.

Patently obvious. I consider excess nitrogen from farms to be pollution too. Just because something is a nutrient doesn't mean it isn't pollution. If we want to amend the working definition of pollutant to exclude nutrients, well then we better remove feces, oil, cyanide, nitogenous compounds, hell there wouldn't be much left to call a pollutant.

 

[MikeyDB]

Tonnington..

I'd go along with that if you're talking about rap "music" as noise pollution...

 

[Tonington]

Sure, I'd personally also include Country music. Except Cash, he's the man. Incidentally I can sing his songs very well in Karaoke, but that's about it.