The earth Hour is back!

[Extrafire]

So you think North Korea is right on this issue, do you? Talk of unholy alliance. Conservatives agree with North Korea. How charming. Is their dictator your hero now? After all, he stood up to those nasty environmentalists.

Anyway, the fact that you have to scrape the bottom of the barrel, give the example of North Korea tells me that it has been a smashing success so far.

Actually he was pointing out how similar your views are to N. Korea's. If (as you say) it was a smashing success so far, then S. Korea would look the same.

 

[Avro]

Uh, no. Earth hour is a hare-brained idea of hypocritical extreme left-wing nuts. The vast majority of participants aren't left wing nuts, they've just been deluded and are acting from ignorance.

Kinda agree with that.8O

 

[Risus]

300,000 homes in Toronto turned their lights off last year. The amount of electricity saved would have lit a city the size of Mississauga for the came period of time. It is NOT a hair brained ides.

 

[Extrafire]

Earth Hour: Lights off, nobody home

By LORRIE GOLSTEIN, QMI Agency

This Saturday, many Canadians will briefly shun electricity.
They’ll sit in the dark for an hour during the fourth annual Earth Hour, the WWF-inspired global “lights out” campaign, symbolically protesting man-made climate change.
Let’s hope those participating, starting at 8:30 p.m., think about this issue seriously, not superficially.
For example, it’s become trendy during Earth Hour to light candles indoors to celebrate the brief absence of electricity.
Problem is, this creates far more indoor air pollution than keeping the lights on.
And if you’re planning a bonfire to show your green credentials, sorry.
Burning wood emits greenhouse gases and air pollution.
In the First World, we’re lucky. We can choose fire over electricity for an hour to show (ineffectively) how “green” we are.
By contrast, 1.5 billion people in the Third World don’t have that luxury.
They don’t have electricity. They’re stuck with fire, fuelled by wood and animal dung, to heat, light and cook in their homes.
As a direct result millions die, every year, decades before their time, choking on indoor air pollution.
Only in the affluent West do we naively romanticize a world without electricity as one of shepherds tending their flocks. Those without electricity know better.
Without electricity, life is nasty, brutal and short. People must stop work when the sun goes down. They can’t preserve food or create sterile medical environments, or any of the other benefits of civilization which prolong life.
Ironically, they are particularly vulnerable to climate change.
A coal-fired electricity plant, however much denounced by First World greens, saves lives in the Third World compared to the alternative, even factoring in smog and pollution, which is why China builds one a week.
How will we face our grandchildren and tell them we did nothing to stop catastrophic death counts caused by climate change, demands today’s smug warmist.
Better ask him how he will face his grandchildren and tell them he campaigned for consigning hundreds of millions to catastrophe by denouncing the very forms of energy by which we powered ourselves out of the Third World, into the First.
No easy answers
In the real world, responsible choices are complicated and hard.
No easy answers can be found in computer models, vainly trying to predict the climate a century from now.
Contrary to what warmists believe, the choice is not a simple one between saving or destroying our planet by burning fossil fuels.
Rather, we must choose wisely in the face of multiple threats confronting humanity.
Understanding begins with realizing there’s no such thing as “good” or “bad” energy.
There’s just energy, each type with advantages and drawbacks.
Coal, oil and natural gas, in descending order, emit pollution and greenhouse gases but supply relatively cheap, reliable, life-giving, life-extending electricity.
Nuclear power emits neither, but costs more and produces radioactive waste.
Wind and solar power are “clean” but so unreliable and expensive at present that the more we prematurely force them on anyone, including ourselves, the more harm we do.
Why? Because this leads to unreliable electricity supply, skyrocketing prices, more poverty, more deaths and less green, since only societies which can feed their people, care about the Earth.
Finally, think, if you’re sitting in the dark, for an hour, about what it would be like to live that way, every hour, as 1.5 billion people do. Think hard.

Source

Now that's an article full of common sense.

I'm agreeing with Avro???8O

 

[Avro]

300,000 homes in Toronto turned their lights off last year. The amount of electricity saved would have lit a city the size of Mississauga for the came period of time. It is NOT a hair prained ides.

You don't even get it do you?

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Do you really think it is about the one hour.....do you?

 

[Extrafire]

Just a quick question Extra?

Was Cap & trade used to combat acid rain?

Did it work?

Just asking....no need to turn the flame on.:lol:

Nope. Just government scrubber regulations.

 

[lone wolf]

Do they normally have the lights on in the audience? if they normally do, you may be surrpised, they may very well turn the lights way down from 8.30 to 9.30.

You may be surprised at how many insurance and fire regs say they can't.

 

[Risus]

You don't even get it do you?

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Do you really think it is about the one hour.....do you?

I don't think you get it. The hour is symbolic, proving that we can reduce energy use, but I understand that it is too difficult for you to grasp.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Yeah, that's what I said. And that's all you (and most other AGW believers) are willing to do. You won't do more than give lip service to more than that.

Conservatives normally don't support any environmental initiatives, whether symbolic or substantial.

Cap and trade is not an environmental initiative, it's a political wealth transfer initiative. Ditto the Kyoto treaty. I don't support the banning of drilling in Alaska (it's not all over, it's a tiny proportion) because I don't see much detrimental effect. If you recall, there were similar concerns over North Slope drilling and pipeline. People said the cariboo herd would be devestated, and instead it had a population explosion. What have I supported? I'm opposed to the discharge of untreated sewage and industrial wastes into lakes and streams, I'm supportive of measures that limit or reduce industrial discharges into the atmosphere, I supported the ellimination of leaded gas. In short, I support pretty much any initiative that actually benefits the environment. However I also recognize the reality that in order for us to live there has to be a certain amount of trade-off. For you to enjoy the energy that makes your life so comfortable and convenient, there will be some environmental impact, no matter where the energy comes from.

And who will oppose discharging untreated sewage into lakes and streams? That can hardly be called environmental initiative, it is a safety issue. Same thing applies to leaded gasoline. Once lead was proved to be poisonous, it became a safety issue, not an environmental one.

So in other words, you cannot point to even a single environmental initiative that you support. But let me throw you a softball. Do you support the Endangered Species Act? YJ evidently doesn't, he as much as implied that all the animal species can go to Hell for all he cares. Are you that right wing? How do you feel about the Endangered Species Act?

 

[Avro]

Nope. Just government scrubber regulations.

So this had nothing to do with it?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Just a quick question Extra?

Was Cap & trade used to combat acid rain?

Did it work?

Just asking....no need to turn the flame on.:lol:

Cap and trade was never passed in USA, Avro. So there is no question of its working.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I don't know what you consider a major initiative. I've already answered to some extent above. Give me a list and I'll let you know.

And I have shown that they were not environmental initiatives, but safety matters. Here is a partial list of some of the major environmental initiatives.

Cap and Trade
Kyoto
Drilling in Alaska
Endangered Species Act
Introduction of bears and wolfs in their old habitats (but where they were hunted to extinction).

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Uh, no. Earth hour is a hare-brained idea of hypocritical extreme left-wing nuts. The vast majority of participants aren't left wing nuts, they've just been deluded and are acting from ignorance.

So you are saying pretty much the same thing as YJ, only in different words. According to you, more than one billion people in the world are extremely gullible (translate: stupid), so that they can be led astray by a few environmentalists. And are you calling the Pope a left wing nut? I am sure Pope will be amused by that, normally he is called a right wing nut (for opposing aboriton, homosexuality etc.).

I don't think anybody is capable of leading more than one billion people astray.

 

[Tonington]

Nope. Just government scrubber regulations.

Care to quote the regulations? I can find one specific mention of scrubbers in Title 4 of the Clean Air Act amendments, but it's at the very end when describing a demonstration project. There is lots of language about caps though, and who must cut emissions. But I don't see anything about specific technologies mandated.

The cap and trade program allowed the market to pick the winners. I don't see anything about government demanding it from a single technology. Perhaps you can enlighten us...

Anyways, if you are right, are you saying that government regulations would be more preferable than allowing the market to pick the winners for all pollution reductions as well?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Actually he was pointing out how similar your views are to N. Korea's. If (as you say) it was a smashing success so far, then S. Korea would look the same.

No he wasn't. He was being sarcastic. If you look at the picture, North Korea is in full blaze. So he was saying that it did not succeed in North Korea. And he was proud of the fact that North Korea stuck it to the environmentalists.

 

[Avro]

Cap and trade was never passed in USA, Avro. So there is no question of its working.

The clean air act

 

[lone wolf]

No he wasn't. He was being sarcastic. If you look at the picture, North Korea is in full blaze. So he was saying that it did not succeed in North Korea. And he was proud of the fact that North Korea stuck it to the environmentalists.

Are you so stuck in the left-right directional challenge that you can't tell north from south?

 

[Tonington]

If (as you say) it was a smashing success so far, then S. Korea would look the same.

If North and South Korea were similar energy users it should look the same, but everyone knows they're not. It's all relative, relative to what the lights looked like yesterday in individual countries...

 

[SirJosephPorter]

And for your information Extrafire, it was a huge success in China.

The Bund on the banks of the Huangpu River is pictured before and during Earth Hour in Shanghai on Saturday. (Aly Song/Reuters). The left side is before, right side during the Earth Hour.

 

[gerryh]

I don't think anybody is capable of leading more than one billion people astray.

The number of Roman Catholics world wide.....over 1 billion.

I thought that you were under the impression that Catholics have been led astray by the Pope?