What Will Co2 Reducation Actually Achieve?

[calkid75]

Can someone answer this? If an agreement comes together in copenhagen does anybody actually think it will make a difference in global temperatures? What is the best case commitments and how does that effect CO2 levels into the future?

 

Even with the best of intentions I don't think we can keep temperatures from rising over 2 degrees.

 

Other than a wealth transfer, what will come of this?

 

I want to hear what others think!

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Can someone answer this? If an agreement comes together in copenhagen does anybody actually think it will make a difference in global temperatures? What is the best case commitments and how does that effect CO2 levels into the future?

 

Even with the best of intentions I don't think we can keep temperatures from rising over 2 degrees.

 

Other than a wealth transfer, what will come of this?

 

I want to hear what others think!

 

I would be just way more happy and comfortable if someone would itemize exactly what has to be done and spent to accomplish 5%, 10%, 20% or 50% reduction in CO2 emissions.

 

How simple is it? How cost onerous will it be? Unfortunately nobody knows what they will do.

 

Normally in business we would do a full on study to determine where we could save money. We would then say we will have a 10% reduction in spending by implementing that plus require an addtional 25% or 2.5% more of "to be found but currently unknown savings". That puts a reasonable challenge out there to everyone but still manageable.

 

We have heard calls to reduce ourselves down to the same level as the 1850's which to me seems impossible. Then I have to ask...what is the penalty?

 

How much savings would occur if today the government said all new buildings must meet a high level of heating and cooling efficiency through furnaces and insulation. Also if everyone put in extra attic insultation what does that do? Also if cities all got to buy extra buses and make them worth using how much would that save? Also if the oil sands are to pay more for production and or equipment to create CO2 reductions...how much is gasoline going up?

 

Lots of what if statements by scientists but no planners are putting $$ figure in front of any initiatives.

 

Why is that?

[Heimdallr]

If it's anywhere near as serious an issue as the majority of the scientists believe (rightly or wrongly and I know you don't agree) than cost doesn't really matter. Furthermore, I mean, *hit will get more expensive and everyone will complain, but they'll still have their flatscreen TVs and pickup trucks. I don't think the world is going to come crashing down because people have to make some sacrifices.

[hydropsyche]

To the older fogies....do you remember how you grew up? Probably like me. Small house (800 sq ft) with 7 people living in it, single car, one TV, single income. My dad was not at the bottom either. He was a manager for a large newspaper. I'm talking less then 40 yr ago.

 

Compare that to today. Two incomes, 1500+ sq ft homes with 2 or 3 people, 2 or 3 cars, flat screens, computers, etc. you get the picture.

 

If there is a wealth transfer, I'm thinking we can survive it. Some of us are way too comfy and spoiled and don't even know it. We are a gluttonous society, for sure.

 

This is the ends I'm agreeing with, but I'm still very suspicious of the means.

[rehsifylf]

To the older fogies....do you remember how you grew up? Probably like me. Small house (800 sq ft) with 7 people living in it, single car, one TV, single income. My dad was not at the bottom either. He was a manager for a large newspaper. I'm talking less then 40 yr ago.

 

Compare that to today. Two incomes, 1500+ sq ft homes with 2 or 3 people, 2 or 3 cars, flat screens, computers, etc. you get the picture.

 

If there is a wealth transfer, I'm thinking we can survive it. Some of us are way too comfy and spoiled and don't even know it. We are a gluttonous society, for sure.

 

This is the ends I'm agreeing with, but I'm still very suspicious of the means.

 

Now that I agree with!

 

Seems like there has never been a time in history without haves and have-nots. The thing is that the haves are becoming a much less exclusive group.

[Guest Sundancefisher]

To the older fogies....do you remember how you grew up? Probably like me. Small house (800 sq ft) with 7 people living in it, single car, one TV, single income. My dad was not at the bottom either. He was a manager for a large newspaper. I'm talking less then 40 yr ago.

 

Compare that to today. Two incomes, 1500+ sq ft homes with 2 or 3 people, 2 or 3 cars, flat screens, computers, etc. you get the picture.

 

If there is a wealth transfer, I'm thinking we can survive it. Some of us are way too comfy and spoiled and don't even know it. We are a gluttonous society, for sure.

 

This is the ends I'm agreeing with, but I'm still very suspicious of the means.

 

Great idea. I say whoever is stupid enough to have two great incomes...working their asses off should get off their high horses and share with the guy that stays on poggy and goes skiing to enjoy getting back to nature.

 

I think if we send enough money to Uganda or Nigeria that regardless of the corruption more than enough will filter down and do some good.

 

People should realize that 10 people to a 1000 square foot home would not only save on energy but also teach better sharing and remove peoples antisocial attitudes.

 

Now that I know this is coming...I definitely won't work as hard. Someone will feed and cloth me. Hey...it worked for the USSR for many years before someone ruined it.

 

The fewer people actually working the less energy we need to make the economy run.

 

Viva la revolution!

[reevesr1]

I do think as a society of pretty well off people we owe the world at large some of our hard earned bucks. That does not necessarily mean I need the government to do that for me. I can do that for myself. Find a worthwhile cause in some other part of the world that you believe in and contribute to it. Also find some local cause and help with that or contribute to it. Those of us who find ourselves in a position to help others have what I think is a moral obligation to do so. There is always a chance some of your money will get to someone who does not deserve it. But it is certain that if you contribute to good causes most of your money will go to people who do.

 

 

[LynnF]

I do think as a society of pretty well off people we owe the world at large some of our hard earned bucks. That does not necessarily mean I need the government to do that for me. I can do that for myself. Find a worthwhile cause in some other part of the world that you believe in and contribute to it. Also find some local cause and help with that or contribute to it. Those of us who find ourselves in a position to help others have what I think is a moral obligation to do so. There is always a chance some of your money will get to someone who does not deserve it. But it is certain that if you contribute to good causes most of your money will go to people who do.

 

I do agree for the most part...but the whole "contribute to good causes and most of your money...." is a slippery slope and probably the start of another discussion. I know that I've completely stopped supporting one of the most major charitable organizations in town even to the point of not getting involved in their annual campaign because I've seen their overhead and I know what their top guys are making and now I know where a good portion of my $$ is going - and in my mind that's not charity and helping those in need. The problem is that somewhere along the line people and organizations with altrustic intentions have become all about helping themselves...the "look out for number one cuz nobody else will" syndrome. Same deal with all this CO2 stuff. I kinda think (as ignorant as this may sound) that why should I do something about it to make it better or to lessen my impact when my neighbour and his neighbour won't. What difference would my contribution or efforts make in the long run. Singuarly, not a helluva lot. But if everyone committed to the same initiative or goal or mandate, then alot. But I don't see that being achieved on a grand enough scale ..... and having our government or other governments or committees cram it down our throats or legislate the hell out of it and us is not the way either.

 

As a side note, I wonder how valuable and impactful this summit is or will be since the President resigned this week. What does that say.

 

And, now that I stand less of a chance of being jumped on to the point of bludgeoning, I"m going to close this by saying I don't believe in global warming and will be a skeptic for the rest of Al Gore's life. But I do believe that the time for environmental change and management is necessary. And I don't think it will be accomplished by closing down the Oilsands either.

[hydropsyche]

If there is a wealth transfer, I'm thinking we can survive it. Some of us are way too comfy and spoiled and don't even know it. We are a gluttonous society, for sure.

 

This is the ends I'm agreeing with, but I'm still very suspicious of the means.

 

I guess that didn't come across the way I meant it. I'm not saying I agree with a wealth transfer (I don't) but if Coppenhaggen gets its way, it could happen, whether we like it or not. Or a redirection to research and development, or whatever. That would lower our standard of living but we would survive it. There is a lot of padding here. Personally, I think its coming and I can't do a thing about it. So I'm rationalizing. Its a fear response.

 

The ends I'm refering to is the slowdown of run away exploitation of limited resouces. Compared to 40 years ago, the average, hard working family, consumed less.

 

I hope that clears it up.

[calkid75]

I enjoy hearing everyones opinions. And I think that many have similar views of what they would like to happen with small differences. The problem I find or don't find is that they seems to be very little data on expected outcomes of an agreement. If cutting CO2 is not going to change the future, why bother and lets move on withusing the money that would be spent on the cap/trade stuff and actually fix our environment. It just seems these people (those at the meetings) and making agreements for their careers or to stop their guilt.

 

There is nothing wrong with living a more simple life, but that should be by choice. I hope to be able to do that but I am not going to tell you or anyone else you should. Same as helping those less fortunate, all good/important things but again should not be forced on others.

 

If an agreement comes to be and is nothing but a wealth transfer. I will do all I can to undermind it. I will not stand for a UN ran social system. The UN is a sham.

 

I just do not think even with each country commiting to everything that they came to the table willing to do that we will make any significant change based on the projections of what is needed according to the models.

 

I am a sceptic but I think I am open to change that will have real world results. I just need to see that the ends justifies the means. I also would feel better if I knew some of the people with there hands out might be making great changes to make there own countries better.

[trailhead]

I'm with Lynn on this one, support a charity that actually helps who it claims to help. I also don't believe in the alarmist global warmong theories, but I do believe in minimizing my own global footprint. My family composts, recycles, uses mass transit, walks or bikes whenever possible, and we live a very modest lifestyle. If some of what is proposed at Copenhagen comes to pass, there will be a shift of wealth, but I unfortunately don't believe that it will benefit the under developed countries. I get the feeling that a new "business model" will evolve and that will ultimately benefit those with the power to implement it. A banana republic type of scenario with a pseudo-enviromentalist twist. I can see it now........Gore Environmental Inc. or The Suzuki Foundation Ltd. what a minute.

[reevesr1]

Its not hard to find examples of charitable organizations with too much overhead. But I guess it depends on what you want to focus on, and what your actions are following discovering the charity you use isn't living up to your standards. I think the response should be to find another charity, but not stop contributing. If we spend our time stressing over the fact that some of the money we contribute doesn't go where we intended and allow that to cause us to stop, then in my feeble little mind, we are focusing on the wrong thing. Focus on the good it does. That is so much more important than worrying about the sycophants in the system. They exist in every system.

 

And I know this is a total hijack. I'm doing it because I'm so tired of the GW debate. Sue me.

[Guest Sundancefisher]

I do agree for the most part...but the whole "contribute to good causes and most of your money...." is a slippery slope and probably the start of another discussion. I know that I've completely stopped supporting one of the most major charitable organizations in town even to the point of not getting involved in their annual campaign because I've seen their overhead and I know what their top guys are making and now I know where a good portion of my $$ is going - and in my mind that's not charity and helping those in need. The problem is that somewhere along the line people and organizations with altrustic intentions have become all about helping themselves...the "look out for number one cuz nobody else will" syndrome. Same deal with all this CO2 stuff. I kinda think (as ignorant as this may sound) that why should I do something about it to make it better or to lessen my impact when my neighbour and his neighbour won't. What difference would my contribution or efforts make in the long run. Singuarly, not a helluva lot. But if everyone committed to the same initiative or goal or mandate, then alot. But I don't see that being achieved on a grand enough scale ..... and having our government or other governments or committees cram it down our throats or legislate the hell out of it and us is not the way either.

 

As a side note, I wonder how valuable and impactful this summit is or will be since the President resigned this week. What does that say.

 

And, now that I stand less of a chance of being jumped on to the point of bludgeoning, I"m going to close this by saying I don't believe in global warming and will be a skeptic for the rest of Al Gore's life. But I do believe that the time for environmental change and management is necessary. And I don't think it will be accomplished by closing down the Oilsands either.

 

If you read between the lines somewhat with what the IPCC is publishing they are clearly saying that "a portion of the warming is natural and a portion is man made". Their recent report on sea level rise stated that a 4 foot rise is expected of which 1/3 is attributed to CO2. That means 2/3 of the 4 foot rise is natural.

 

As such should we be paying to stop a natural moving train of sorts or paying money to develope strategies and methods to deal with things such as heat or cold resistant crops and freely share that information with the third world. Should we switch the third world back to first producing food to feed themselves and then sell excess abroad instead of producing food the first world wants and then have to buy back food from the first world. The producing of rise in the developing world has been a travesty of food growing injustice.

 

Still...no one on this board has seen any idea of what needs to be done to meet a 20% reduction from 2006 CO2 levels versus 20% drop from 1990 levels. Then like Lynn said...who can honestly say China will be reporting fairly and correctly what they are doing in their country to live up to and "legal" document.

[brownsbask]

Read this:

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article....rarian-nonsense

 

If opinions remain unchanged and skeptics remain skeptical (which is what I expect) we are in just as much trouble as it appears.

 

But really, what does it matter, because the article is just another piece of the grand "climate scheme", right?

[calkid75]

If you read between the lines somewhat with what the IPCC is publishing they are clearly saying that "a portion of the warming is natural and a portion is man made". Their recent report on sea level rise stated that a 4 foot rise is expected of which 1/3 is attributed to CO2. That means 2/3 of the 4 foot rise is natural.

 

As such should we be paying to stop a natural moving train of sorts or paying money to develope strategies and methods to deal with things such as heat or cold resistant crops and freely share that information with the third world. Should we switch the third world back to first producing food to feed themselves and then sell excess abroad instead of producing food the first world wants and then have to buy back food from the first world. The producing of rise in the developing world has been a travesty of food growing injustice.

 

Still...no one on this board has seen any idea of what needs to be done to meet a 20% reduction from 2006 CO2 levels versus 20% drop from 1990 levels. Then like Lynn said...who can honestly say China will be reporting fairly and correctly what they are doing in their country to live up to and "legal" document.

 

I guess this is what concerns me when I started this thread. I do not know what it will take to reach some of the talked about goals. Secondly is this what countries are going to commit to. I doubt it, as it seems that the developing nations want the rest of us to turn off and they will continue their growth. It would be nice for them if this was possible but I don't think those in the developed countries are willing.

 

Then my real concern is, is all of this talk and possible future sacrifice worth it. Will it actually stop climate change? <My view: Not likely> Will it save people in these developing nations from disaster? <Again my view: Not likely> The real problem for these third world nations is figuring out how to support their own populations, this is not knew as poverty has been an issue pretty much for ever in these places.

 

So I guess I see it as, this is what has been going on for life times. Nothing is really changing, the only constant is change. Each one of us needs to try to be responsible with the environment we live in. I just see no benefit in agreeing to anything at an international level. There really is no benefit for Canadians. It may help someone some where, but shouldn't our money be directed to sources that we individually choose to support?

 

One last related issue, if Canada looks at a Cap and trade system, it should be only within our borders. If we commit to change then we should change and not try buying our way out. All money spent should stay within our borders where we can ensure that the cuts being purchased and real. I do not trust any of the other countries involved as I think this whole issue is a sham.

[mvdaog]

Something I find pretty interesting...

All the bashing that everyone is completely okay with without even thinking twice about it... towards China. I wonder how this was so easily sprouted, seems to have just magically sprung up in the news and then every discussion about why we shouldn't have to change. I wonder what people who are Chinese and are proud of their country think when every time they hear their country mentioned it's about how irresponsible they are, how destructive, greedy, egocentric.

 

I also wonder if in China, they all say the same exact things about the US and Canada.

 

I think a close analysis of history will show that in the past, and in some cases presently, both US and Canada have exploited much of the environment in irresponsible ways as China may be doing. I feel that if we were being honest we would see that we have done exactly what China is being accused of right now, and it just serves as a useful excuse for those who don't believe they should change their ways.

 

Who cares what everyone thinks China might do or not. It's all based on not much thought or evidence, and it doesnt at all mean that we as a nation can't step out and lead a change.

 

Its kind of funny - it's like a thief whos telling someone they dont need to change their ways because theres this other guy whos starting to steal stuff too and whos not going to stop, so why should he stop stealing?

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Something I find pretty interesting...

All the bashing that everyone is completely okay with without even thinking twice about it... towards China. I wonder how this was so easily sprouted, seems to have just magically sprung up in the news and then every discussion about why we shouldn't have to change. I wonder what people who are Chinese and are proud of their country think when every time they hear their country mentioned it's about how irresponsible they are, how destructive, greedy, egocentric.

 

I also wonder if in China, they all say the same exact things about the US and Canada.

 

I think a close analysis of history will show that in the past, and in some cases presently, both US and Canada have exploited much of the environment in irresponsible ways as China may be doing. I feel that if we were being honest we would see that we have done exactly what China is being accused of right now, and it just serves as a useful excuse for those who don't believe they should change their ways.

 

Who cares what everyone thinks China might do or not. It's all based on not much thought or evidence, and it doesnt at all mean that we as a nation can't step out and lead a change.

 

Its kind of funny - it's like a thief whos telling someone they dont need to change their ways because theres this other guy whos starting to steal stuff too and whos not going to stop, so why should he stop stealing?

 

Ummm...the difference is freedom of information in Canada and the US. That information feeds the tree huggers and environmentalists. In China...do you really believe that they will do anything to harm their economy while the rest of the democratic world does? Especially without any unbiased checks? I can not see anyone being that naive. For this to work in theory...you must ensure the major contributors of CO2 are open and honest.

 

If someone said we do X, Y, Z and we will be a more efficient society yet not harm the economy etc...then maybe this would be easier to move through.

 

If your spouse said "hey dear...I am heading out to buy stuff to lower our Carbon footprint..." Would you not say "how much ya spending honey and what are you buying?"

 

Generally when you go to spend you have a detailed plan and budget and timing. We have no plan, no budget and timing with penalties...

 

Scary way to do business and do this effectively, efficiently and cost effectively.

 

[calkid75]

Read this:

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article....rarian-nonsense

 

If opinions remain unchanged and skeptics remain skeptical (which is what I expect) we are in just as much trouble as it appears.

 

But really, what does it matter, because the article is just another piece of the grand "climate scheme", right?

 

 

I read through the article. This is the information that I find when I look around for more information but it is a lot of alarmist type info with very little in the case of actual numbers.

 

Only numbers that jump out at me is even if we acted today temperature would still rise 0.5 degrees. I need more information of this type to become alarmed, much more.

 

So please convince me, Lets lay this for the ground work. Let's go with the information provided that temperatures are in fact rising globally. Lets also for arguements sake say that man is the complete cause of this warming through CO2 emissions.

 

Is it enough for the developed world to drop CO2 emission levels to 20% below 1990 levels? If not what % of decrease is needed? Can developed nations meet these levels, and can they do it quickly enough. (Canadians cannot simply turn off the heat, and remember Canada's population has grown by 6.2 million since 1990)

 

What is the devloping world going to do as they need more of everything, they simply cannot just stop. Their people want more of what the developed world wants. How do they lower emissions while growing their populations at alarming rates? (China and India have grown by over 500 million and counting since 1990) These countries are bringing on new coal fired power plants at very regular intervals.

 

So how are we going to get CO2 emissions down, I cannot do the math. It seems to me that the best thing to do is prepare for the worst. Can you paint me a better picture, cause nothing that comes to mind is rosey.

 

From my point of view I am glad that most Canadians are a resiliant bunch and that we are sitting of some of the worlds most valuable resources. (Land, water, lumber, oil, gas)

 

Rather than the articles we need to do something or the end is coming tone. Lets hear solutions, real world attainable solutions, not ideal situation, lab type solutions.

[duanec]

what's the deal here?

this global warming related thread has yet to be reduced to the usual blackballing of anyone works downtown, playground name calling, and quoting gobs of random meaningless data and stats up to prove my-dad's-smarter-than-your-dad, and all the usual hijinks.

 

it's more like a thoughtful exchange of ideas and opinions between people who share a common interest.

 

what the hell?

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Read this:

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article....rarian-nonsense

 

If opinions remain unchanged and skeptics remain skeptical (which is what I expect) we are in just as much trouble as it appears.

 

But really, what does it matter, because the article is just another piece of the grand "climate scheme", right?

 

There have been many of these articles on both sides. Both can be very convincing in the absence of fair points from the other side. For every point there is counterpoint...although not mentioned in this one sided article. That is the problem...there is to much one sidedness on both sides to really get to the meat of the issue from the publics perspective.

 

This article came across casting anyone with a contrarian opinion as be nuts or having their own hidden agenda.

 

Two easy points to mention:

 

When even this article in one breath says money is meaningless to researchers...please...money is what drives research and pays salaries. I don't think $2,000,000,000.00 (2 Billion dollars) is a shabby global warming research budget.

 

I also question the article so friviously dismissing the lack of data transparency. Some data may be public but exactly what numbers goes into someones report is what is critical and needs to be understood. Someone should be able to replicate the study and to do that you need the data.

 

Everyone reading this and most articles will assume that all warming is 100% man made CO2 induced which is NOT true at the very least.

 

The major flaw is that the science is not settled and the ideological agenda is pushing back and stopping contrarian thinking. If they are so 100% correct...why not open the door for scientific debate?

[robert]

Been reading alot of forum chatter on global warming and pollution lately and i'm going to toss my 2 cents in for what it's worth. Lets throw some common sense in here and think globally.

 

If people would start taking control of their own lives and really put some effort into it - this transition could be alot easier and alot cheaper for everyone.

 

For example: Look around your home for all the useless little trinkets that you didn't need to buy but they were pretty or something to look at - chances are it's made in china or asia somewhere - now think about what it took to get it to your shelf. Good chance that resources were trucked to the plant where it was made, resources burned to make it - then on a truck, then to a train, then to a boat and to another train, then to another a truck to get it to the store - then you burn resources for a round trip to the store. Was it really necessary to buy that one little item that cost so much in emissions? Next time you go to your local walmart - stop and think about all the useless crap on the shelves, look at where they were made and think about what it took to get them to your hands.

 

Hydropsyche has it right - we have become a gluttonous society.

 

Are we going to pay for the sins of our forefathers? Maybe, maybe not - but our kids and generations to come are going to pay dearly for ours - that's the way it is. The population of the world is pushing 7 billion - that's alot of people, alot of cars, alot of mouths to feed and clothe which means alot of carbon footprint.

 

It was stated in this thread "why should I do it when my neighbor won't". Like the old addage goes - If your neighbor jumps over a cliff - are you going to follow him? Why not set an example for others to follow? Answer? Because too many people want to hang with the jones' - people like their toys and I can't see that changing any time too soon. People are going to buy their gas guzzling hummers and bitch about the price of gas cause that's just the way it is.

 

Next time it goes to -35, be consious of your driving - look in the rear view for the exhaust coming out of your tailpipe - that should get you thinking cause it's not all water people. There was a cloud over edmonton during this cold snap - could smell the emissions in the air.

 

Can people really believe that we're not causing damage on a global scale?

 

 

[bigbowtrout]

Computers and how they are made harm the environment. So all of you please feel free to hand yours into the nearest recycling centre and this way you will be helping the Earth and you will be helping this FLY FISHING forum.

[bhurt]

All I feel like saying right now is Burn baby Burn *please add sarcasim*

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Next time it goes to -35, be consious of your driving - look in the rear view for the exhaust coming out of your tailpipe - that should get you thinking cause it's not all water people. There was a cloud over edmonton during this cold snap - could smell the emissions in the air.

 

Can people really believe that we're not causing damage on a global scale?

 

I agree... People should stop working hard and then using that money to buy things that make them happy for whatever silly reason. We can shut down a ton of factories. While mega jobs will be lost we can put those people into jobs decreasing CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

If we can somehow make half the people people work less we could create more jobs and generate less waste on a per person basis.

 

As for smog...CO2 is not smog. What you are seeing are other chemicals that are not naturally present in the atmosphere. Removing smog is not what global warming is about. It is specifically targetting CO2. I think everyone in big cities should pay $1000 / year in taxes. Anyone traveling within the city limits should be forced to take a bus or c-train or pay a $1000 carbon fine. With the extra taxes and fines we can vastly improve transit so that it is efficient and reliable.

 

Anyone travelling outside the city should pay a $50 carbon tax or take regular charted buses between cities and towns. Farmers should be encouraged to switch to horse draw wagons and plows.

 

Pig farms should capture and dispose of waste directly into underground reservoirs. Gases generated should be used as alternative clean burning power for local residents.

 

All public fishing waters should be privatized. Each private fishing group should be forced to invest in a bus. Only full buses may travel from city to river/lake. Big carbon savings. Same goes with hunting. Why are so many guys driving around when a planned farmed hunt could save on gas etc.

 

I also figure if everyone forked out $50,000 to redo the exterior walls and roof to allow for R50 insulation we could save billions on heating and cooling and therefore be less reliant on carbon. At the same time exterior windows should be reduced in both numbers and size. All fireplaces should be banned regardless of being wood or gas. All future homes should have extremely high energy savings requirements.

 

All appliances should be turned off completely after use. Applicances like TV's or ones with radios or memory should be banned and laws put in place that they be shut off or pay a $1000 yearly licence to run them.

 

All camp fires should be banned in Alberta. Propane and gas stoves should also have special carbon taxes put on the fuel. $20 a bottle should prevent wastage and inprove efficiencies and limit use. Solar ovens should in turn be subsidized by tax payers.

 

Flying food around the Earth will be banned. Eating potatoes and carrots and apples should be enough for North America. Pineapple, christmas oranges, bananas, rice etc. should be only eaten locally.

 

Rich people that want to travel either by car, camper, motorhome, plane or boat should have special levies and taxes placed on them to help provide recreational opportunities for people that remain near their home.

 

Implementing and force these and other ideas while costly should be gratiously accepted by everyone who cares about the Earth and protecting their kids from death due to tornados, blizzards, heat waves and floods caused by global warming.

 

Robert...what are you personally doing that is harming the whole Earth? What are you doing to stop/prevent this from happening?

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Finally someone has the guts to stand up and demand Albertans get penalized harshly for having oil. The National Energy Program should of been used to tax Alberta harshly and such money could of provided for much needed jobs in Ontario and Quebec.

 

Why not shut all oil and gas development in Alberta until it is just about run out and then produce it and thereby in the meanwhile produce zero CO2 emissions and then make a killing on selling it in 100 years.

 

The most important thing to force Albertans to understand is that they should sell all their gas and oil to eastern Canada and the US but pay 100% of the cost of greening up the production process and charge nothing to the consumer. Within 10 years the technology should be there for Alberta to start making some money on the sale. In the meanwhile Alberta can become a have not province and we can rely on transfer payments from Quebec and Ontario instead of the other way around.

 

I just love listening to Suzuki. He is full of an indescribeable wisdom!

 

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...-statement.aspx

 

 

 

David Suzuki: Climate issue is the same as slavery

Posted: December 17, 2009, 2:30 PM by NP Editor

Full Comment, Kelly McParland

 

 

Evan Solomon interviewed David Suzuki on the CBC the other day about the Copenhagen climate summit.

 

The whole interview is here. (Go ahead: Drive yourself nuts)

 

But let's highlight the bit below, in which Mr. Suzuki explains how Ottawa's efforts to safeguard jobs and the economy is the equivalent of the U.S. southern states building a society based on slavery. Solomon gives him a chance to backtrack on this ("David, just for the record, and I know you're passionate, but is comparing this to slavery, is that fair, to demonize the other side like that?") but Suzuki is sticking to it. Trying to save jobs in Alberta is the same as enslaving human beings.

 

 

It's apparently also the same as the space race, because people thought that would be expensive too, and in the end we beat the Russians, so there! (Note to David: They didn't finance the space race by closing down Alberta and charging everyone else a big new tax).

 

Oh, and just to top things off, Mr. Suzuki wants us to know that it's ridiculous to put jobs and the economy ahead of reducing emissions. It's more important than jobs. It's more important than Canada. Canada is just a "rinky-dink" country that got in the way of Kyoto. It's more important than everything.

 

Seriously, he says that:

 

 

SOLOMON: You talk about 2006. But the CBC has obtained documents that raise questions about the government's ability to even meet that 20 percent reduction from 2006 levels of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. Today the environment minister, Jim Prentice, he did stick by that goal. But there is word that they're thinking about giving the oil sands perhaps a different break on that.

 

 

SUZUKI: Of course.

 

SOLOMON: And in fact, what's your view on that?

 

SUZUKI: Of course. Well, you know...

 

SOLOMON: And by the way, they're saying because it is, by the way, because the oil sands creates jobs, creates money that is transferred to other provinces, and that's their notion of the balance.

 

SUZUKI: You know, that's what they used to say in the southern states. We can't give up slavery because it'll destroy our economy and slavery gives us jobs and we have to have slave runners and all of that. Some things you do because they're right. And you know, the problem is...

 

SOLOMON: But David, just for the record, and I know you're passionate, but is comparing this to slavery, is that fair, to demonize the other side like that?

 

SUZUKI: We're talking about the fate of all of humankind and the kind of future we're going to leave for our children. Yes, I think this is criminal what's going on now, to act as if the economy. Remember, the economy is a human- created construct. It's not a law of nature. You know, some things like gravity and the speed of light, you can't do anything about that. We can't do anything about the fact that we're animals, and if we don't have clean air, clean water, clean soil, clean energy and biodiversity, we're dead. So, surely to goodness that should come before anything else. That's our very survival mechanism. And yet, we have put the economy above that. All I'm asking for my leader, Mr. Harper as my prime minister, please tell us whether or not you think human-induced climate change is real and whether it's serious. At least I'd like to know what our starting position is on this, because Canada as a country is probably more vulnerable to climate change than any of the other industrialized nations.

 

SOLOMON: And so...

 

SUZUKI: We're a northern country.

 

SOLOMON: And so David, I mean you've said that you think this Copenhagen summit is doomed. What would you like to see happen there? Given all, you know, your criticisms about nationalism and the ability and what you say is the prime minister's lack of commitment on this, what would you like to see happen at Copenhagen?

 

SUZUKI: Well, I'd like to see Copenhagen say, look, we can't get a deal. We are not going to water it down just to suit Canada or Saudi Arabia. We want a strong, hard deal. We'll wait until next year, until we get the negotiations going along further. But we've got to say nature sets the limits, not us. Nature. And nature has already indicated we're producing more carbon dioxide than all of the green things in the ocean and on land can reabsorb. That's a limit.

 

SOLOMON: What is the enforceable target? I mean, the key is, you know, we had those targets at Kyoto. Countries just decided not to abide by them. How do you, is there a mechanism that can make countries abide by them and actually make some hard targets?

 

SUZUKI: I'm not a politician. I would have thought that there are international ways of making such deals and enforcing them with sanctions or whatever you want to do. One of our criticisms of Kyoto was it had no teeth. It was just something that was set. And by the way, most of the countries that signed on are going to meet those targets. But there was no way of, of enforcing them if a country like Canada came along and said, oh, we're not going to do anything about it anyway. We need, if we're going to have such, such regulation we need ones with teeth, a way of punishing those that fail to, to meet them. If we don't have that, then it's just on paper and any rinky-dink country or person can say, no, I'm not going to even bother trying. We've got to, we've got to say that the world on which we depend is telling us what the limits are and we have to get our activities down to live within those limits as quickly as possible.

 

SOLOMON: Even if you say that costs people their standard of living and costs people jobs?

 

SUZUKI: Well, I mean, we haven't even begun to try to reduce emissions. I think that the opportunities are enormous. Just look at what Germany has done. Their major job-producing area is in the renewable energy sector. They made a commitment and they realized the, the enormous benefits. So, to start off by saying, oh my god, if we get off petrochemicals, my god, it's going to be. We haven't even looked at what the alternatives are. I want to tell you something. I was a senior in college in the United States in 1957, October 4, 1957. Do you know what happened?

 

SOLOMON: Go ahead.

 

SUZUKI: The Soviet Union launched Sputnik. Now, in the months that followed we were horrified to see that they were so far ahead of the United States. They launched the first animal, the first man, the first team, the first woman. And meanwhile, the Americans were trying to get one satellite up into orbit. They didn't just say, oh god, it'll destroy our economy to try to catch up. They said we've got to beat these guys. And when Kennedy said we're going to land on the moon before them, nobody complained. And guess what? They realized enormous benefits that nobody even predicted, GPS, cell phones, round-the-clock news channels. Well, maybe that's not so good.

 

SOLOMON: No, that's good David.

 

SUZUKI: A virtual stranglehold on Nobel prizes. I mean, make the commitment and the opportunities will come.

 

SOLOMON: David Suzuki, it's always good to talk to you. Thanks for coming in.

 

SUZUKI: See you.

 

SOLOMON: Thanks David.