Note to Tyee Editor: There is something wrong as you failed to print my previous blog. Is this censorship?

I used to spend a fair amount of time flying in the very high arctic thirty years ago, all the way from Greenland to as far as you could go westward in Canada. One heck of a lot of ice, some massive mountains on the east end. But the thing I found interesting was the permafrost. Somebody had bulldozed a trail by Inuvick and it was getting wider even then. Turning ito a bit of a bog.People were concerned about the permafrost and build well off the ground. The permafrost is melting now, the polar bears are having trouble getting food around Churchill and smaller ships are doing the passage. We can all say who cares? Well if we aren't concerned we should be. If the Greenland glacier starts to really melt it will get damp in a lot of waterfront towns and cities. You don't have to be a scientist to see the changes and of course the ozone hole is getting bigger over australia. We smarten up or esle. No worry says harpo and team, things will really get going in 2050 in Canada.

I find it too rich for words that this pretend government would issue a pretend environmental policy that doesn't even kick in any targets until long after people won't even remember who the hell they were.

or maybe they will:

The scene: A beautiful day in Paradise, butterflies everywhere, kind of like Eden returned. The year is 2050 A.D.

Adam: "Hey Steve, isn't it a beautiful first of Febuary in Yellowknife?"

Steve: "It sure is Adam, my dear spouse, are we going to go away this winter?"

Adam: "Where to darlin'?"

Steve: "I was thinking maybe Mars, you know, feel some cold, maybe snowmobile a bit or ice skate."

Adam: "You know we used to be able to do those things way to the south of here.?"

Steve:"Really?"

Adam: "Yep, we used to have winter in the lower 58 states, but that was before the beautiful Goddess Rona and the chubby ChickenHawk Saint Stephen saved CanadaUS from all that."

Steven: "You mean Goddess Rona and St. Stephen actually walked the earth once?"

Adam: "Yeah, I'll tell you all about it sometime, but don't say anything to anybody about it, it doesn't jive with the official story. They didn't like couples like us back in them days either, but then when the earth's rotation started to slow from the sheer mass of humanity riding along they promulgated a law requiring most people, except those of us with the correct genes to have a spouse of the same sex."

Static..........a bunch of noise and then we hear something about "come with us, we're with the CaUS Security Service and you've been recorded speaking blasphemy.....more static then the screen goes blank..........

Sometimes I think that all of us who are concerned (Professors, professionals, enviros, etc.) should declare we are taking a year off to 'recharge'; or even go farther and say we are quitting! Then watch the squirming or opportuning that takes place!

I did not have the opportunity to creaste offspring and I am glad of it now.

Face it, as long as their is profit to be made from fossil fools, it won't stop until the last drop of oil is squeezed out of the tar sands.

Having just turned 45 years old today, its a double whammy: a midlife crisis and the 'slow' death of the human experience on this planet. Note I did not say the death of the planet because without 'us' she will continue to 'be'.

The vision: more of the same! A reversible mortgage taken out on the future of the human on the planet!

News Release may interest your readers and is relevant to this discussion (posted at http://www.cnw.ca/en/releases/archive/October2006/19/c2383.html ):

Clean Air Act an improvement on what we had before, but problems remain, says new environment group NRSP

19 October 2006

Canada NewsWire

The Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP), a newly-launched environmental organization, notes three pluses and three minuses in the Government of Canada's Clean Air Act announcement today.

"First, we are very pleased the Government makes no reference to the Kyoto Protocol or purchasing 'carbon credits' from foreign governments in their announcements today," said Dr. Timothy Ball, Chairman of NRSP. "Kyoto ratification was a serious mistake that Canada must remedy by withdrawing from the Protocol in February 2008, the earliest date possible."

Second, NRSP expresses support for the Government's promise of open consultations with Canadians before emission regulations are decided upon, something that has never occurred to date despite over a decade of government action on the issues. "The opportunity will now exist to involve independent climate scientists, engineers and economists," explains NRSP advisor Dr. Tim Patterson, Carleton University earth sciences professor.

Third, NRSP considers it an advance that the government is now speaking about reducing greenhouse intensities over the short and medium term, instead of absolute emission caps.

However, NRSP notes a series of elements in the proposed legislation that are very problematic.

First, while NRSP considers it an advance that carbon dioxide (CO2) - a benign gas - is not listed as a pollutant or toxin, there is disappointment that it is being considered for regulation without extensive further study. "CO2, the greenhouse gas of concern in most climate control schemes, is almost certainly not a significant driver of global climate change," said geology professor Ian Clark of Ottawa University, also an NRSP advisor. "Recent research points to natural factors, such as changes in the output of the Sun, as being the most significant drivers. Why isn't the Government devoting time and effort to studying these factors?"

Second, and related to this point, NRSP disputes the need for long term CO2 targets. Funds allocated to CO2 reduction should clearly be diverted to working on real environmental concerns - including adaptation to the natural phenomenon of climate change.

Third, NRSP questions the need for enhanced pollution regulations from the Federal government. "Besides the hard caps that already exist on emissions for many industries, current provincial standards are generally working well," said Tom Harris, NRSP Executive Director. "With some exceptions, pollution levels across Canada have been dropping for the past three decades and the establishment of further emission standards should be set at the most local level possible, not nationally."

The Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP) is a Canadian non-profit group that promotes sensible environmental and natural resources policies based on science, engineering and economics. We are led by environmental scientists: seven of these form our Science Advisory Committee, and another 24 are climate experts with whom we are allied. For more information about NRSP, or to set up interviews with NRSP participants, please visit nrsp.com or contact:

Tom Harris, B. Eng., M. Eng.
Executive Director, NRSP
P.O. Box 23013
Ottawa, Ontario K2A 4E2
e-mail:

or
Timothy F. Ball, PhD Chairman, NRSP

What is this?

The 'we can adapt to anything including climate change' so lets all cheer technological solutions' organization?

Are they linked to CAPP?

Focus on the Family?

Wow. I'm impressed. You managed to run an entire article on climate change without single handedly blaming the Harper government for Canada's lackluster response to it.

I personally think that Coal Baron should accept way more responsibility than Harper.

About "Climate Porn"

It's fine to simply believe that scaring the shit out of people is going to wake them up. But unrelenting images of the planet dying may be less terrifying and more despairing: it is not silly to consider that "climate porn" actually detracts from action, because images of planet death fed to those who know nothing about why, or how, or how it can change, make people feel hopeless.

Hopelessness does detract from action.

So - it's not to say "no to climate porn!" It's to say: enough with the "yes/no." Some people are getting scared into action. Others feel hopeless. How do we inspire the kind of action that will slowly (and with no guarantee) start to get us moving in the right direction?

If we're going to rattle people out of a lifestyle that they have spent most of their lives building towards, there has to be some sort of guidance. But we see experts on TV everyday telling us to use their hair product, eat their food, do this, do that. So expert knowledge is not enough: you cannot expect someone who has only just now become aware of the severity of what we face to up and leave their life, their security, etc. just because of this expert severity, just because experts say it makes sense.

It does make sense, but sense is not the issue - "what can I do?" is the issue, and the keyword is "can." We need to make people feel like they can make a difference, and give a hint about how. Just telling them that they can and should is not enough.

"Eat your beans, they're good for you."
How many of us actually listened?

"Don't do drugs, they're bad for you."
How many of us experimented anyway?

Beans ARE good for you. Drugs (well, many of them) ARE bad for you.

But Joe driving his Toyota Tercel to work everyday sees that he's doing a little better than the SUV beside him, so maybe that's enough? After all, nothing bad has happened yet.

All you experts out there who know what the world needs to do: if you want everyday people to start changing their lives, you will have to find a way to INSPIRE them. We need the climate porn to keep us appraised of the threat. But we desperately need images of what is possible - what the world could be, what we might achieve, should we successfully avoid the threat.

We need to beleive that we can stop this. We need to believe that the resulting world will be a better one.

what amazes me is how we have survived the last 12,000 of climate warming.

But we did.

The earth is currently warming up. Has been for 12000 years. If there were no humans, not one and nat a single gallon of gas being burned, it would still be warming up.

Are humans impacting the climate ?? Yes we are. But the impact is minimal in teh greater scheme of things. So we hit X degrees a few years earlier . . . it will happen regardless.

But be careful out there . . with so many large chunks of the sky falling from the doomsday scenario propagandized by the enviro-weenie Kyoto porn pushers, it is more likely you'll be killed by the debris than the climate change.

Repeat after me . . .

Mother Nature is good. Mother Nature is correct. Mother Nature is warming up the planet "weather" we like it or not.

The above garbage is from the same Tom Harris of which the Sierra Club wrote the following:

(it'll have to be in two sections since it exceeds the fascist chararter count rule)
Excerpted from the The Hamilton Spectator
Thu 21 Mar 2002
Forum, p. A15

Climate skeptic’ misinterprets global warming
by John Bennett

I’m not a scientist nor a climatologist. I am, I hope, a well informed concerned citizen, and as such I was enraged by an article by Tom Harris published by The Spectator on Feb. 12 (The dogma of ‘global warming’: CO2 link with climate change is still uncertain).

I was so enraged that for the first time in my life I called the Forum page editor to complain because the article was full of misinformation designed to mislead the reader. This article is the result of that conversation.

Harris is not a climate scientist. He is what is known as a “climate skeptic.” I spoke to Henry Hengveld, Environment Canada’s top climatologist, about climate skeptics and their counter theories of ice ages and improved plant growth. He told me that by and large they are not climatologists and they do not submit their studies to be peer reviewed by other experts in the field.

Harris uses two techniques. He quotes people whose titles suggest they are experts in the field when they are not and he cites studies out of context, drawing incorrect conclusions. His lineup of experts sounded impressive: Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Richard Lindzen, Dr. Willie Soon of Harvard and geologist Tim Patterson of Carleton University. None are climatologists.

Lindzen told Ross Gelbspan, author of The Heat Is On (Perseus Books 1997), that he charges $2,500 a day to consult for fossil fuel companies. His trip to Washington to testify before Al Gore’s committee on climate change was paid for by Western Fuels — a coal mining company. He is a paid lobbyist for the fossil fuel industry.

I had never heard of Willie Soon or Climate Research magazine. I did an Internet search on Climate Research magazine — every reputable scientific publication has a Web site. I expected hundreds of hits. I got three. All were articles by Harris, Soon and Tim Patterson, the geologist from Carleton University. In fact, one article was co-authored by Harris and Patterson.

Harris also refers to a petition signed by 17,000 scientists. It sounds impressive. But it is a crock and has been effectively dismissed. To qualify as scientist all that was required was a B.Sc. degree. How did it come about?

In the spring of 1998, mailboxes of U.S. university graduates were flooded with packets from the “Global Warming Petition Project.” The packets included a reprint of a Wall Street Journal op-ed with the headline “Science has spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth,” a copy of a faux scientific article claiming that “increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have no deleterious effects upon global climate,” a short letter signed by U.S. National Academy of Sciences, past-president Frederick Seitz, and a short petition calling for the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on the grounds that a reduction in carbon dioxide “would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.”

Here's the rest of it:

The sponsor, the little-known Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, tried to beguile unsuspecting scientists into believing that this packet had originated from the National Academy of the Sciences (NAS), both by referencing Seitz’s past involvement with the NAS and with an article formatted to look as if it was a published article in the Academy’s Proceedings, which it was not. The NAS quickly distanced itself from the petition project, issuing a statement saying, “the petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the academy.”

The most enraging method Harris uses is misinterpreting the work of real scientists. He does this when he refers to professor Jan Veizer of the University of Ottawa. The professor’s study was published in a scientific journal last winter and was picked up by the media as evidence that proved the climate change theory wrong. The media did not ask the professor.

When the CBC did, he said he believes human-induced climate-change theory was not affected by his findings and that he was distressed by the media reports that misinterpreted his work.

Yet, a year later here is Harris continuing to misuse Veizer’s work. Harris commits this folly again when he refers to media reports of ice thickening in Antarctica. Scientists studying a glacier in Antarctica published a report in a scientific journal saying it was getting thicker. The media jumped on it as proof climate change is not happening. The media mistakenly equated the phenomenon studied by Joughin and Tulaczyk — a change in ice flow rates — with ice melting rates. The mistake contributed to the erroneous belief that the studies constituted, as it were, scientific “tests” of the global warming theory.

The headline in the National Post declared: “Antarctic ice sheet has stopped melting, study finds.” “The ice sheet growth that we have documented in our study area has absolutely nothing to do with any recent climate trends,” Tulaczyk declared. Again, newspapers did not talk to Tulaczyk before drawing conclusions from his work. Harris then argues that we have no alternatives to fossil fuels. While no technology can replace all fossil fuels immediately, and environmentalists have not suggested it could, we can move to a more sustainable energy system. Renewables are part of the solution, but the greatest and quickest gains can be made through conservation and efficiency.

Right now, the federal and provincial governments are calculating the economic impact of the Kyoto Protocol on Canada. New work is required because Canada won significant concessions in the rules of the protocol in 2001. These concessions will make it easier to meet the Kyoto target.

Harris opened his article by saying we are about to see a propaganda campaign by environmentalists. In fact, his article coincided with U.S. President George W. Bush’s announcement and Alberta Premier Ralph Klein’s media stunt in Moscow. I would suggest if there is a propaganda campaign, Harris is part of it. The most significant thing Prime Minister Jean Chrétien can do this year is ratify the Kyoto Protocol. We should support him in making this decision.

John Bennett is director, atmosphere and energy, for the Ottawa- based Sierra Club of Canada and director of the Climate Action Network of Canada.

Don't be fooled, of course Harper has his clones set up to carry the can for Rona, who can't even carry herself properly - as noted elsewhere. These people are so utterly compromised that they think they can get away with such patent lies in this day and age.

I agree that too much negativity can be self-defeating. While not forgetting to educate people on the impending disaster, we ought to concentrate more upon what can be done to stop allieviate.

There is a brighter side to climate change. The Earth is vastly overpopulated with humans, who are rapidly destroying it. Perhaps with careful planning and wise use of technology it could sustain two billion people - although one billion may be more realistic. It follows that five-sixths of the present population must be removed. Again with careful planning this might be done painlessly. But we know our fellow men: they will not go gentle into that goodnight. Gaia has decided to end the party more forcibly.

Global warming will not by itself be sufficient. It will however be supplemented by AIDS combined with drug-resistant tuberculosis, some terrorist-planted fusion bombs in major cities, and other ploys still to be revealed. The planet will recover and a more benign dominant lifeform may emerge.

Grumpy, you should now well know that the Tyee will censor comments that do not fit its agenda.

That is also very true but you are tampering with a Sacred Cow. One cannot debate the mantra of Global Warming with evidence such as monastic chronicals that clearly show a warming between 100-1600 AD, a sudden cooling from 1600-1800 and warming since then.

Debate is simply not allowed on this issue. Accurate statistics started on a global level since WW2 and therfore we can only base our theories on that 60 years of data. Do do otherwise would not be acceptable.

In the article it was mentioned that if there was huge change right now we might only lose a quarter of the world's species? Great. And we all know the chances of huge overnight change. The political systems of the world don't allow for that kind of thing.

Besides, popularion growth will drown out even the most optimistic scenarios.

I appreciate what you have written - more please. However, I suspect that Mr. Suzuki may be suprised to hear that he is a "white man":
------------
"the end-times types tend to be white men with wrinkles and grey hair. Lovelock, Farley Mowat, Kurt Vonnegut, David Suzuki and Al Gore spring immediately to mind."

Rees is dead on, especially about the release of methane when the permafrost's gone. Much worse than cows farting, trust me. I studied this phenomenon once for a fiction piece I was working on. My ecologically astute aliens were attacking earth with methane effusion bombs to trap the heat and make the planet unlivable, and kill off everything that crawls, swims, walks wriggles, flies or breathes.

Once the methane's out it's basically all over.

Ree's other comment regarding the fact that the mainstream press insists on pretending that global warming's a near 50-50 controversy in the scientific community is an equal disaster resulting from the fact that the media moguls are all in cahoots with the fossil fuel energizers, and as Rees admits about himself, are all wealthy enough to enjoy the last hundred years or so in forgetful reverie.

Do you really gotta be a scientist to figure out that the place is heating up?

Feel the air outside. It's the 20th of October, eh.

"All you experts out there who know what the world needs to do: if you want everyday people to start changing their lives, you will have to find a way to INSPIRE them."

Well put, chrisyak!

I think the epidemic of depression among climate researchers is explained (in part) by their realization that they are inextricably part of the problem!

Don't get me wrong -- these guys are my heroes -- but I'll bet most of them drive to work each day from the suburbs, shop for Chinese plastic crap in big-box stores, and couldn't grow a potato if their life depended on it. Perhaps the best among them (Suzuki? Lovelock?) drive a Prius and have a small garden.

But these are matters of degree only. We're past the point of "matters of degree." What is required is a revolution in life-style. We must re-localize. We must walk to work. We must grow a significant portion of our own food. We must produce our own energy.

Yea, "climate porn" gets me down. I purposely limit my consumption of it, but more importantly, I purposely limit my consumption, period! One can live quite comfortably below the poverty line if you can at least partially feed yourself and produce some of your own fuel.

I think it's good to have an eye on the rear-view mirror. But when you see a big, black cloud approaching, for heaven's sake, don't stop pedaling to turn around and stop and stare in horrified fascination!

Run to the light, not away from the dark! There are so many good things to do. Learn Permaculture. Grow a garden. Work from home. Form community. Make biodiesel from waste oil and methane from compost.

If you are not a part of the solution, you are a part of the problem. EcoReality

Ice cores provide a very accurate historical record of both CO2 and temperature. Recent findings indicate we are at a temperature peak for at least the past 650,000 to 800,000 years.

The famous "hockey stick" graph clearly shows that temperatures are rising faster than they have for hundreds of thousands of years. This is based on modern science, and it's credible (in part) because it largely corroborates the "monastic" recordings of dates of first bird appearances or hard frosts, etc.

Consider also the precautionary principle.[url] If you can imagine the horrible consequences of the growing consensus on climate change scenarios, does it not make sense to do what we can to avoid it? (And if you can't even imagine it, would anything at all convince you? If not, at least be honest with yourself that you dealing with beliefs rather than facts and evidence.)

[url=http://www.EcoReality.org]EcoReality

(Boy, I screwed that up! How do you put links in this damn thing? Sure wish The Tyee would add a "preview" button...)

Consider also the precautionary principle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

If you can imagine the horrible consequences of the growing consensus on climate change scenarios, does it not make sense to do what we can to avoid it? (And if you can't even imagine it, would anything at all convince you? If not, at least be honest with yourself that you dealing with beliefs rather than facts and evidence.)

EcoReality: http://www.EcoReality.org

Apologies for the unrelated post, people.

Hey Truman:

Wherever you are, here's some new meth stats. A friend of mine in health policy forwarded this to me. Check out the freakin' numbers! Un-fcking-believeable. Incidentally, there was absolutely no coverage of this in the Canadian gay press, and also no coverage of the GLMA study released in August. Lots of advertising for the Circuit Parties tho. I happened to be in Montreal Thanksgiving weekend, having totally forgotten that the Black & Blue "festival" was happening. This stuff was everywhere.

The sincere opinions of researchers like William Rees and Patrick Condon are born out of thoughtful consideration and hard work. I have no doubt that what they see is depressing. That said, non-one has ever been able to give me a straight answer on what, to me, is a drop dead question: If global warming is a relatively modern phenomenon, caused by over-population and overuse of fossil fuels, what was it that caused the high temperatures, the droughts and dustbowls of nearly a century ago? After all, cars were few and far between, plastic unheard of and, although wood and coal fires were used for heat and cooking, population numbers were a mere fraction of those who occupy the planet today.
Another question: Last August, we were told that Mars was at a spot closer to the Earth than it "will be during the lifetime of anyone alive today." Presumably, it has been making its way towards us for many decades. So - what influence has this phenomenon had upon our climate and, now that it's on its trajectory away from Earth, will everything begin, once again, to cycle to lower temperatures?
Last question: If methane is bubbling up through the permafrost, is there no way to harness that for power to, in part, lessen our dependence upon fossil fuels?

This question I don't get. How would it be possible for us to use it if we don't want it in our atmosphere?

As for your first question, there's only been droughts and other problems around the world throughout history. But that's just part of the natural cycle.

This time, and anyone should feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, the cycles are taking place within a trend where the heat just keeps increasing.

I highly recommend this columnist for the Guardian. He's very good at explaining the issue, writes a lot of his columns on this topic and has a new book out on it called Heat.

http://www.monbiot.com/

"What is required is a revolution in life-style. We must re-localize. We must walk to work. We must grow a significant portion of our own food. We must produce our own energy." posted by Bytesmiths.

I agree, I guess my depression is that there seems to be few thinking like your self.

I know I do not want to go it alone.

Perhaps all of the people who do care could choose to live together to illustrate the path forward-no not a throwback to the commune, but similar.

My efforts right now are focussed on a Sustainable (most rigourous definition, not the definitions used by those whose Vision is: more of the same!) Community Plan for Campbell River, BC. In other words my Vision (would love to integrate others' Visions) of what Campbell River would look like, feel like, and do in a sustainable future.

Frank:

I don't pretend to know the right answer to your question on methane. All I'm going by is that, locally, 'the powers that be' - including 'greens' - seem to think it's a great idea to harness Fraser Valley methane from cattle farms, and BC/Alberta/Guelph methane from landfills for power - so, to my lay mind, methane is methane - just some of it is way far away.

Tell us, Tom, how much of your NRSP funding come directly or indirectly from oil companies and other industries which comtribute heavily to global warming?

My apologies too, everybody, for being off topic.

Nightbloom, I know all about this. What the hell do you think I was trying to tell you months ago?

Aids got into the homosexual community in America by an insane overuse of CONTAMINATED illegal drugs which unfortunately came into vogue in the late 70's.

This overuse resulted in the immunosuppression that has been blamed on one of Robert Gallo's HTLV group of retroviruses.

Imagine this: Gallo and Montaigner supposedly discover the cause of Aids, but don't get the Nobel Prize! Why not? Because the entire debacle was an obvious corruption of medical science, as Celia Farber claimed in her Harper's article of the same name: "Out Of Control: Aids And The Corruption Of Medical Science." Harpers Magazine, March 2006.

Aids in Africa is just old diseases and poverty with a new, lucrative name.

This is the dirty little secret that mainstream media refuses to deal with and has resulted in he Pharmacorpia raking in 100's of billions of dollars by PRETENDING THAT A BIOCHEMICALLY INERT RETROVIRUS CALLED HIV CAUSES AIDS, and selling poisonous "antiretrovirals" such as AZT, various dna chain terminators and protease inhibitors--all mitochondria killers, many of which cause illnesses that actually resemble Aids, and a host of other pathologies such as mitochondrial myopathy.

See "mitochondrial myopathy" and "neuropathy" and learn how these disorders are known as "hiv-related" instead of "hiv-drugs related," which they actually are.

HIV DOES NOT CAUSE AIDS. If you're starting to understand the truth, nightbloom, why not just come right out and say it?

Go here and follow all the links to common sense:

http://www.theaidstrial.com/

Imagine: This guy, Stephen Davis, writes a novel, using the REAL names of the Aids criminals, accusing them of causing hundreds of thousands of unnecesssary deaths (actually murders) and doesn't even get sued.

The last thing the AIDISTS want is a trial, at which the thousands of emerging scienfific dissidents will be called to testify about this unprecedented hoax which in America alone has unnecesssarily killed one hundred times more than the 9/11 disaster.

Push a boycott of all big box stores, buy everything you can locally, get involved in and help set up local currency system. Only real way to curb and reduce emissions is to live like the Amish but since this will never happen Think Locally Act Locally

More about that hack Tom Harris here:

http://www.desmogblog.com/uh-oh-the-nrsp-is-praising-harpers-climate-change-bill

Isabella2 writes: "If methane is bubbling up through the permafrost, is there no way to harness this for power, to, in part, lessen our dependence on fossil fuels?"

That's actually a very good question, Isabelle.

There's lots of problems with getting usable methane from below the permafrost.

The methane up there is not in a gaseous state, but rather in the form of methane hydrate which is a crystalline solid found in layers of ice. Obviously this form of methane will not flow upwards through piping, and recovering and converting it into a gaseous, then a liquid state, like the LNG now in use, (which is 90 percent methane, like all natural gas, by the way), poses some very difficult technical problems.

And, there being no free lunch, another concern with trying to get the stuff from below the permafrost is the liklihood of causing it to be accidentally released into the atmosphere and adding dramatically to the greenhouse effect.

I learned all this stuff here:

http://www.agiweb.org/legis105/ch4.html

To: Tim Ball, Patrick Moore, Stephen Harper, George Bush, Workingman, Logjam, Grumpy, Exxon, BP, Shell et al

I know eating too many French fries can make you fat. But who cares! I love my fries and that's not the only thing that makes people fat. French fries are an important part of our economy--think of all the jobs for pimply kids and farmers and the scientists who genetically engineer better french fry potatoes! Besides, in the past, people have gotten fat and skinny and it had nothing to do with French fries, so why blame my favourite food?

Every day for the past week, I've weighed myself and found I'd put on an extra kilo. I've never gained weight this quickly in my life, so I'll admit it's a bit worrying!

I've also been eating triple servings of French fries for lunch every day this past week, and some rude colleagues suggested today at lunch that maybe I should lay off the fries.

What dumb jerks! Don't they know that people get fat without eating fries? It happens all the time! It's just middle-aged spread and I'm clearly going to get fat anyway, so I'll damn well eat my fries whenever I want.

In fact, I think I'll eat 4 servings for lunch tomorrow. Who do those a$$holes think they are anyway, telling me what to put in my body? When I get too fat, I'll just get one of those little golf-cart things to get around, or maybe some liposuction or a new heart. What's the big deal? Since when did this stop being a free country?!

Logjam 603

Are humans impacting the climate ?? Yes we are. But the impact is minimal in teh greater scheme of things.

Is it possible this is babble regurgitated from wires that blindly gobble up false creations dreamed up by macrostrategists in dimly lit rooms dumbed down enough for mass consumption and recycled by folks blindly pulling party lines that satisfy one personal need or another.

Suppose pressing matters do offset the desired direction of macrostrategists. Suppose that figuratively our home and native land isn’t an island but a body that exists in a volatile environment fraught with extreme challenges and messy global conflicts that were seeded well before last week.

It might be wiser to show a little respect for the intelligent folks who selflessly sacrifice so much of themselves to protect the fine machine that keeps us all alive and kicking.

I am 40. When this ecosystem does inevitably collapse, I'll hopefully be dead. I have no children, and I don't plan to have any.

Just be sure to bury me with my bicycle and transit pass. The rest of you can be buried with your car keys.

Sorry Tom Harris the car dealer, the whole solar output theory was recently blown out of the water by better data, leaving only anthropogenic factors to blame for the current temperature spike. But there are huge fortunes to be made in claiming a clever cure.
Methane bubbling out over a few million square miles of tundra is a ridiculous challenge to capture. That's a lot of polyeththylene sheet, if you get my drift, Mr. Technofix. We'd just burn the methane anyway, cooking our hotdogs, converting it into heat and CO2, neither seemingly in short supply.
Maybe we could just light up the tundra, an Olympic-size everlasting flame that'll put an end to winter, and warm up the oceans enough that the frozen methane hydrates get bubbling too. One starts to wonder about how many tipping points there will be. No worries about cold warrior Mars coming too close, we'll take Earth closer to lovely warm Venus, so we can paddle casino boats around on lakes of molten lead.

Hey, did you guys read where poster Tom Harris quotes himself for more evidence for his 'not to worry' hypothesis?

"Besides the hard cap that already exists on emissions for many industries, current provincial standards are generally working well," said Tom Harris, HRSI executive director.

Don't tell eeeeko-warrior, Terry Glavin about this brilliant new self-referencing polemic device, eh.

Sorry Tom, but you gotta use ANOTHER expert if you're trying to dig up support for your theory. We already know what YOU think.

But a hilarious joke, though, Tom. Thanks, we all need a good laugh.

In the event, of course, of the quoted Tom Harris being a different guy than the posting Tom Harris, (or of the second Tom Harris being sufficiently peer-reviewed for the presented statement of fact) I offer my apologies in advance.

As for Suzuki apparently being one of those "white men with wrinkles and grey hair,"...well, I guess I'm just going to have to succumb to the new revival of Darwin's discredited "acquired characterists" hypothesis, and admit that there just might be something to this "epigenetics" stuff: racial characteristics by association--not necessarily associated with birth.

Gilles Duceppe summed up the so-called Conservative Clean Air Plan.

Made in Alberta - Written in Washington

He would make a great PM, if only he led a party that didn't have a primary objective of breaking up Canada. The HarpoCons want to give it to the Bush Crime Family, the Bloc want to break it, the Liberals assume it has always been and always will be theirs.

Maybe it really is time to give the NDP a chance, their agenda couldn't be worse. As Kinky Friedman sez in his Independent run for Governor of Texas (lauching pad of silly preznits) - I couldn't do worse!

to rkewen
I wonder, if Harper wants to give or sell Canada to Bush, maybe the Bloc is right to want to take a part of the country and keep it from Bush. It's a fairly big hunk of land with resources and people. Other than that, I keep wondering what difference any plan by Harper or anybody will make if the USassholes makes no changes at all as seems obvious.

Hello Everyone,

It is Autumn in South Korea too.
Since the beginning of October we have had one day of rain (very dry, eh?) and the average temperature has been between 25 and 30 degrees celsius.
It is October 21st today and the temperature was close to 30 degrees celsius!

Yes, Global Warming is myth and bananas grow in the winter in beautiful BC!

The truth is all around us!

Kevan Hudson
Suncheon, South Korea

Truman Green said:

Hey Truman,

Absolutely, basically the public is not getting the information they need still. And that imo, can be blamed on sellout industry\gover't scientists in cohoots with the media. Spot on dude.

On the Glavin issue:

I concluded my impression of Glavin... If he ever was a believer in the Earth, although not likely, he is sure a Judas now...

I believe it important to expose this destructive way of thinking when ever it shows up.

You never sell out on one species to unnecessarily appease another.

Peace Truman,

-Bear

Quote:
The earth is currently warming up. Has been for 12000 years. If there were no humans, not one and nat a single gallon of gas being burned, it would still be warming up.

Are humans impacting the climate ?? Yes we are. But the impact is minimal in teh greater scheme of things.

Is it possible this is babble regurgitated from wires that blindly gobble up false creations dreamed up by macrostrategists in dimly lit rooms dumbed down enough for mass consumption and recycled by folks blindly pulling party lines that satisfy one personal need or another.

No . . . it is not possible. But I'll admit that was nice prose . . stupid, ignorant of facts and totally incorrect but it does kinda roll off the tongue like a good lie or propaganda should.

Its all memory from four + years of Geomorphology, Climatology, Meteorology, Glaciology, Limnology and Geology courses. Course in university, taught by real professors. In Canada. I'm not making this up. I even got relly good marks. I know of what I say. Really

Just the facts. You may want to try a little education rather than just drink the enviro weenie Kool Aid.

" Name " :

Re: " Patriot Fries " dissertation

Right on brother !!!

One other editorial comment.
In the French Fries debate , you forgot to mention the critical importance of "POUTINE" to Canadian national unity.

The OTHER " hockey stick "(mais oui !!!) curve clearly indicates the undeniable correlation that the migration of this Quebecois cuisine as far as Canada's Western -most province has been absolutely crucial in keeping Confederation intact.....and anyone that denies this is simply " out to lunch ".

P.S. " pass the gravy " aka $$$ Grant so we can research this some more.

Logjam 603:

Did the Profs you had ever discuss the " mathematical models re: quasi- Chaos theories" as applied to weather ?

Saw a PBS documentary on it a while back ...quite fascinating.

Effectively, weather and weather patterns are VERY UNpredictable beasts. Seemingly minor factors/can have a major influence in almost a catalytic and hence a major domino effect. Very complex interactions.

A couple of Profs (interviewed in the documentary )created a mathematical model to help explain this aforementioned unpredictability and why prediction errors are made....

To reassure those who prefer to view things with a more long term perspective, I will offer these words from Mark Morford of the San Francisco Chronicle.

Humans are the single most dominant and destructive species in planetary history. But sentient man has been around for what, a million years? The Earth has been here for roughly 4.5 billion. No matter how you slice it, the Earth still sees us as just another fly in its bedroom. A particularly obnoxious one, no doubt, but still a fly. Isn't that reassuring?

This is of course meaningless to those in the Pasty Party who think the planet is almost 4,000 years old and Adam and Eve had dinosaur steaks for Bar-B-Q, but there's no use talking to those folks anyway, they are too busy listening to Stephen and God!

Have a nice day!

"When she's at her lowest, Campbell has moments where she looks at her son and second guesses the wisdom of having brought a child into the world".

Thanks for your honesty, Campbell.

Hey Logjam;

I got my Geography degree too. I spent the time in University remembering a bunch of facts, and then spitting them out for a test.

I remember speaking of ice ages, and climate change. In the 90s, global warming was there along with fish farming issues.

However, no one even mentioned the pine beetle infestation. Spoke a bit about localized ones, but that was it.

Although I copied labs, crammed for tests, and wrote papers that I would be embarrassed to put my name to today, I did recognize that the earth is a system, and that you cannot take humans out of the equation.

Unless we die off.

'Until we die off, more like, moat' Excellent point!

I find it mildly disturbing that Environmentalists get upset because of CO2 worst-case scenarios in 50-100 years yet look the other way when we face a global AIDS epidemic today. Get your priorities straight and stop naval gazing!

When you dig deeper with these Enviro freaks you find they welcome AIDS because it forms part of the de-population solution for reducing CO2 (the Final Solution?) where humans are killed off to allow trees to grow. There is a whiff of that in some postings here.

The Enviro Movement has become sociopathic about their fixation on global warming. They give us Climate Porn provided by Climate Pimps who earn their keep scaring the general population and exaggerating the consequences of global warming. It is pure alarmism. And based upon their article they are starting to believe their own jive. Don't get me wrong, I believe anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for climate change. I'm not part of the Denial Industry (Harris and his scumbag crew).

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1875762,00.html

It has taken us 250 years to build up this level of CO2 and it is going to take at least 50 years to start reducing CO2 levels. In the mean time humans and other species will ADAPT and MIGRATE as they have always done. The end is not nigh, CHANGE is upon us so we should all get use to it. In the meantime, if you want to help people instead of trees then give a thought to AIDS in Africa.

This article claims technology is not going to reduce CO2 enough before we’re all cooked. I disagree. Malthus was wrong: the earth does not have a fixed carrying capacity that we have exceeded. Technology is the answer and will save us from global warming (at least it has a better chance than our politicians agreeing on anything). Have you seen the developments in solar power recently? It may finally be economically viable as a result of “thin film”. For those interested check out:

http://www.nanosolar.com/

(And no, I don’t own shares of anything…..although I wish did.)

Combine this with advances in LED technology and solar power may be our cheapest form of energy for lighting in a few years.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-solar17oct17,1,1441731.story?coll=la-headlines-business&track=crosspromo

I work to ameliorate both problems, PLF. Working to help one problem is not exclusive of the other. Further, there are some ways in which the two are related. Air travel, the most environmentally unfriendly travel, is how AIDS was initially spread throughout North America - and it was a promiscuous Canadian flight attendent who took it to high risk others in major population centers.

I imagine that if all North Americans, Europeans, Australians, Japanese and South Koreans not currently living in total poverty would donate 1% of their pre-tax income to solving the AIDS problem, and then the hunger problem, and then the malaria problem and so on... we would have a much healthier/happier world. We could feel better about ourselves. It is all a matter of sharing the burden and finding someone with some strength to have the lead these crusades.

(Before someone suggests it be me, I have an incurable health issue of my own that would render such a task impossible - I would fail before I could even get a good start. Barring that, I would consider devoting my life to such a task.) Perhaps a young powerful reader, here, would consider such a goal.

Passaglias Left Foot:

says:

which is of course a wonderful and extremely positive way to start a conversation.

Unfortunately, it creates an atmosphere where the thoughtful reader actually suspects everything else his interlocutor has to say henceforth is probably laced with the same kind of small minded vindictiveness.

And therefore the reader tends to move on without a moment's thought about whatever thread of a valid argument Passaglias Left Foot may have started with.

Too bad.

PLF, I feel so sorry for those poor apologists for the fossil fuel energy industry, you know the ones who have secret meetings with Darth Cheney to write enviromental policy for the US (and now Canada as well, apparently). And since they are in the Office of Vice, they also, out of a sense of service and the kindness of their little hearts, help plan the odd war (well the divvying up of the prizes (like Iraq) anyway, nobody really plans the US wars these days, obviously.)

You know who I mean, and I also pity those "scientists" who make up the other 50% of scientific opinion to fight for truth against the "junk science" that warns of non-existent climate change or environmental degradation or any future need for potable water that can't be met by "staying the course."

Anyway, I think it is a real shame that the Oil Barons, the Fish Farmers, the Gene Modifiers etc. don't pay them anywhere near as well as them Climate Pornagraphers in Academia and working for government agencies that George W. Bush doesn't control. Oh the injustice of this cruel but almost perfect world. I know it will be perfect soon, as soon as everybody realizes that outfits like Monsanto, Exxon, McDonald Douglas, Boeing and Enron (what's that, no Enron?)
know the way that is best for us all.

The First Fool (and his Daddy "5 Deferments" Dick know the way to paradise!

Alci said:

The problem being? The loss is what?

I believe in de-populating the planet.

All women should have two tickets. Each is for a baby. One baby to replace her, one to replace her mate. After that, her tubes get tied. No exceptions.
Abortions are freely available to ensure the child the woman brings into the world is healthy and capable of supporting itself. Triplet births etc would count towards these tickets and whichever child was born last would be killed.
Two tickets.

Sounds awful huh?

Back in the day, mothers would leave wailing infants out in some farmers field to die of exposure. We were practicing this management strategy only 200 years ago when food was scarce. That informal "strategy" looks like childs play now.

A "managed" humanity involves moral and ethical choices our species seems incapable of agreeing upon.

Our "rights" and "freedoms" will rightfully free us from an inhabitable planet.
Fine with me.
I'm a misanthropist at heart (never understimate the stupidity of people like Passaglia and have a good laugh at their expense) and it looks like us anti-humanity types are going to win this in the long run.
Thanks, idiots!

another nail for the sky is falling pseudo science that has yet to show any proof - scientific proof, that actually backs the human induced/GHG theories.

Science, not matching wiggly lines on graphs . . that is not science. Never was, never will be.

Study shows snowfall hasn't increased over Antarctica in last 50 years
Findings dispute assumptions in some climate change models

COLUMBUS , Ohio – An international effort to determine the variability of recent snowfall over Antarctica shows that there has been no real increase in precipitation over the southernmost continent in the last half-century.

The results are important since most accepted computer models assessing global climate change call for an increase in Antarctic precipitation as atmospheric temperatures rise.

The findings also suggest that the slow-but-steady rise in global sea levels isn't being slowed by a thickening of Antarctica 's massive ice sheets, as some climate-change critics have argued.

The study looked at both the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS), a marine ice sheet with a base below sea level, and the much thicker East Antarctic Ice Sheet (EAIS) that sits atop dry land. In recent years, large volumes of ice along the coast of the WAIS have melted at a rate previously unseen. Some observers have blamed global warming for this and for the increased calving of icebergs along the continent's margin.

"We're certain that our results are representative of the entire Antarctic continent and that the trends we do see are correct," Monaghan said.

When they were finished, they had generated the most precise record of Antarctic snowfall yet, and doubled its length by 25 years. The reconstruction provided a picture of precipitation on both an annual and decadal scale that showed wide variations across the continent.

"This approach is quite a bit more reliable than a global climate model," Monaghan said, adding that this method gives them snapshots of the Antarctic snowfall changes on a grid, something that wasn't possible with other methods.

Monaghan and his colleagues are cautious about their findings. They point to the short 50-year length of the record as a limitation of the study and long for at least a century of data before they can give a definitive answer about precipitation trends over Antarctica .

"The year-to-year and decadal variability of the snowfall is so large that it makes it nearly impossible to distinguish trends that might be related to climate change from even a 50-year record", says Monaghan.

"This means that new, highly accurate satellite measurements of the amount of Antarctic ice must continue for several decades to determine whether Antarctica is gaining or losing water to the ocean."

But as to whether warming in the atmosphere over the Antarctic and the surrounding oceans has brought more precipitation to balance the ice lost from edges of the continent during that latter part of the 20th Century, Monaghan points to the conclusion "that global sea level has not been mitigated by recently increased Antarctic snowfall as expected."

The key issues now are how snowfall will change as the atmosphere continues to warm and whether climate model predictions of increased snowfall can be trusted, he said.

###

Other Ohio State researchers on the National Science Foundation-funded project included David Bromwich, professor of atmospheric sciences in the Department of Geography; and graduate student Ryan Fogt; Sheng-Hung Wang, a research associate with the Byrd Center; and Cornelius van der Veen, a Byrd Center glaciologist. Additional researchers from Russia, Italy, Australia, Norway, Germany and China were also co-authors on the paper.

This story embargoed until 2:00 pm EST Thursday, August 10, 2006 to coincide with publication in the journal Science.

Written by Earle Holland, (614) 292-8384;

rkewen

You may of course be right about Passaglia's left foot, his right foot, both his arms (assuming the devices at the ends of which are the things he's used to punch the keys on the computer) and his head - being of little or no consequence.

But, we've (I'll use the collective pronoun here since I assume you'll end up seeing yourself as being more or less in agreement) been taking an awful lot of flak around here of late that's sounded pretty ad hominem and dismissive to me and a good deal of unjustified criticism about the left being 'smug' and not capable of brooking DISSENT.

And therefore my comment.

I don't think PLF or logjam from Alberta above here has actually taken the time to research and 'understand' the problems of presenting what they've posted as even a facile 'counter' to the reality of what's been happening to the ecology.

They don't understand the vast preponderance of evidence and science that supports the contention that we're a lot like frogs swimming happily in a pot of water destined shortly to become frog soup.

But that's okay, they are entitled to their opinion as is - although I would never call it a 'moral' vision, godsChild, who happens, in this case, to be playing her cards on my side of the table for a change. Progressive movements need to take their allies as they come, there aren't enough of us around these days.

The point I wanted to make - and it really has as much traction for the right (although I wonder if they’ll recognize themselves) as the left (and especially for those who bill themselves as honest messengers and dissenting supporters - again you'll know exactly what I mean) - is that if you want to get someone to listen to your message it isn't a very good strategy to start out by insulting both the intelligence, the character and the sincerity of the people you disagree with...

Not that I think there is anything wrong with slapping someone down after the initial introduction and period of grace has proved exactly why they come on like a moron...as you well know.

As Bear would say,

‘peace’, brother. Have you answered that email?

We aren't always preaching just to the choir after all. Even well-intentioned editors ought to understand that; don't you think?

I love it. Things could just as easily be cooling off and the same people would be squawking. Climate does not stay the same forever. We are the end product of a long list of survivors of climate change. We'll adapt. Some better than others. Things just won't be the same.

snert, the reason people squawk is because it isn't "just happening."
So if I figure out how to hack into your bank account and use your money for my needs, that's okay, eh? You can just adapt, it won't be the same but hey things don't stay the same.

The fact that the Corporate Elite and their agenda to satisfy their greed is contributing to the problem is the part that shouldn't just be shrugged off and adapted to. It also shouldn't be presented as not happening or not being something that could or should be addressed.

The earth belongs to all of us, not just the neo-cons. They have no divine right to exploit what is actually the resources that we all, including other species, are dependent on for life itself. They eventually will realize that they don't like the world their greed is responsible for creating. All the money in the world and fancy toys become meaningless without air to breathe or water to drink.

Don't forget the lack of joy in a life lived under seige when the majority of the rest of humanity realize the only thing that they can do is take what is everyone's back by force. Sitting behind a wall hording everybody else's stuff while the dispossed throw bombs (jeepers, sounds like modern day Zion to me), dig tunnels to get at you, disrupt whatever way you try to access water, oil or whatever you need most doesn't sound like a pleasant way to live.

Feudal society changed because there was a lack of social equity and justice and eventually the lords had to devolve some powers and share some wealth. Rome fell to the Barbarians, the French Revolution redistributed some wealth and some power. It's been going on a long time, and sometimes there are steps backward, as in the Gilded Age and lead up to the Great Depression and WWII. Then for awhile it moves ahead, at least in some parts of the world. Right now a bunch of greedy Assholes are trying to set back the clock. There's no doubt they will be taken down, the only question is will they take the whole human race and the inhabitability of the planet with them?

rkewan
have you checked your email lately?

something interesting may be going down.

Alci, check yours now, nothing creepy, at least that's my take for now.

Agreed - thus far!
glad you got the package though.

This:

finally appeared in one of the comment windows I'd opened.

You're right Alci, I did over-do it a little. My apologies. "Enviro Freaks" is a bit harsh along with me painting the UBC prof with the same brush as other reactionaries in this area. And to prove your point it appears that rkewan didn't read a word of my posting beyond that.

I think "Enviro Alarmists" is closer to the point I was trying to make. While I absolutely do not deny human induced global warming, I think the consequences people are promoting/suggesting are over-blown. As I mentioned, humans and other species have great adaptive capabilities and will migrate to greener pastures.

Now we're making progress!

Dana, one of the bloggers over at the Galloping Beaver a fine Canadian Blog posted this tonight:

It's a remarkable document in many ways not least of which is their unqualified acceptance of the scientific basis of human contributions to global warming.

Mostly though it spells even more trouble for the corporate sponsored global warming denial community.

And of course for the political right in North America.

Including Stephen Harper and his dog Rona Ambrose.

That's okay Dana, Gumboots and Tears McKay started it. He's (Old G & T) got a lot of nerve, at least Belinda's dad is a successful businessman rather than an alleged bagman for the Mulroney Crime Family.

You can link to the actual evangelical document at the Beaver's lodge, that way you can add them to your bookmarks.

http://thegallopingbeaver.blogspot.com/

Sorry PLF, I imagine God made 'em do it!

And isn't it funny that the evangelicals link to exactly the same scientific bodies that are referenced in the essay at the start of this thread too?

I guess God is behind that as well!

Thx rkewen - you should check Mary's blog now.

I read this article and the response posts (including mine) and I do get saddened by the unwillingness to smart with the small things that we can do every day to increase environmental awarness.

Let's face it.... we humans can only evolve so fast, and our technological innovation can only help so much.

But this article states "Ah to be young"....

Well that is the problem....

How many school yards and parks in Vancouver, Burnaby, and New Westminster are adequetly treed.

In fact, how many back and front yards in Burnaby and Vancouver simply paved over.

Instead of writing books that only the converted will read, these grey and aged should be planting trees and then explaining to their young neighbors why they are doing it. There might be a lesson in saying "I plant this tree because I won't enjoy it, but people two generations from now will say it is priceless."

rkewen

Well part of adapting is figuring out how to keep you out of my bank account in the first place. Adapt or die. Nothing is constant.

A Snert is an obnoxious or annoying user of a BBS or online computer role-playing game. Humorous explanations of what "snert" stands for abound, such as "Snotty Nosed Egotistical Rude Teenager" or "Sexually Needy, Emotionally Repressed Troll". Likely the term gained popularity as a combination of "snot" and "nerd".

- Wiki

(of course you already know this)

I read this article and the response posts (including mine) and I do get saddened by the unwillingness to smart with the small things that we can do every day to increase environmental awarness.

Let's face it.... we humans can only evolve so fast, and our technological innovation can only help so much.

But this article states "Ah to be young"....

Well that is the problem....

How many school yards and parks in Vancouver, Burnaby, and New Westminster are adequetly treed.

In fact, how many back and front yards in Burnaby and Vancouver simply paved over.

Instead of writing books that only the converted will read, these grey and aged should be planting trees and then explaining to their young neighbors why they are doing it. There might be a lesson in saying "I plant this tree because I won't enjoy it, but people two generations from now will say it is priceless."

Moat

Try using Google Earth as opposed to Wiki-. You'll find lots of trees in people's backyards in Vancouver. Brown lawns don't clean the air in summer so should we water more?

Global warming and generally climate change is the simple "cost of doing business". In short, the stock and money markets and daily increasing profits.

As I have written many times before, wealth can not be created, only taken from other sectors, the environment and the future and global warming is the best example.

Is there a solution ? I'm not certain, neither are my scientist friends, but a lot of things could be done to slow the process and allow nature to balance itself, instaed of standing there like idiots, not daring to touch the main causes, because that would not be "friendly to business and investors".

The first thing to do would have to be to take away the right of money creation from private banks, because artificially created, imaginary capital looking for conversion into resources to increase profits is the licence and main cause of environmental degradation.

Then there are a number of other things that could be done, like the breaking up and eliminating huge corporations and replacing them with locally based, true private enterprise. The vast majority of things needed for decent living standards, and well being, can be produced locally with labour intensive methods that don't cost anything to real economies.

What we have today is a robber economy, similar to gangs of drug soaked nuts going on rampages.

Ed Deak, Big Lake.

Fiat Lux sez:

Right as usual Mr. Ed, the trouble is the way they keep their books these "costs" aren't even acknowledged, much less considered. The way our "robber" economy keeps score even something like Katrina is just another big PLUS for the GDP, thanks to economic activity generated by rebuilding the damage.

You are also correct about the effect of artificial money creation (cheap credit is part of this as well) on "business" and on the real world. Of course for the currently promulgated "Capitalistism" fad to work this is necessary. Otherwise it becomes obvious that it is really a zero-sum game with many losers necessary to create each "winner."

Hey,Harris.Go pedal your garbage somewhere else .
People here are too intelligent to buy into your crap .

Lawns are enviornmentally unfriendly .
Better to plant the area with natives that are low maintainance and do not need supplemental watering .
No more fumes from mowers and whackers either .

Loud and Clear Fortier
"What I've said for a long time is we have to communicate better, and that includes myself," Mr. Fortier said. "In doing that, I think we will win favour with Quebeckers."

Mr. Fortier was responding to questions about slipping support in recent public-opinion surveys, including a Strategic Counsel poll for The Globe and Mail and CTV that found the Tories and Liberals tied at 32-per-cent support. Tory support in Quebec dropped from 30 per cent in May to 16 per cent in the latest survey.

No,Canadian's are receiving the message loud and clear.We just despise what you morons are saying .
Good luck trying to find a seat in Quebec you stupid parasite .

Snert,

Oh yes, I can use Google earth to go over BC I can look at massive clearcuts and other environmental impact.

I imagine that I will also soon be able to look at Pine Beetle devastation as well.

Oh yeah, yer brown patch of grass is a weed.

Off Topic (well not entirely) but relevant. If the recent Softwood Lumber Sellout dampened anyone's faith in the wonders of NAFTA the following excerpt should put your mind at ease - I particularly like the part about us freezing while hair driers run uninteruptedly. The meat of the article linked to at bottom is about Iraq, that other energy giant. The folks there actually get to use electricity, well not very often or very much, but hey, not my problem!

Fine - as long as Canada doesn't want to change its mind about this. Well, in fact, Canada can't change its mind about this - a point celebrated in the report. When Canada signed the North American Free Trade Agreement(NAFTA)in 1993, we gave up our right to cut back the amount of oil we export to the U.S. (unless we cut our own consumption the same amount).Interestingly, Mexico, also a party to NAFTA, refused to agree to this section, and was granted an exemption.
The U.S. report points out that that, under NAFTA, Canada is not allowed to reduce its exports of oil (or other energy) to the U.S. in order to redirect them to Canadian consumers. Redirecting Canadian oil to Canadians isn't permitted - regardless of how great the Canadian need may be. Some outside observers, like Colin Campbell over in Ireland, find the situation striking."You poor Canadians are going to be left freezing in the dark while they're running hair dryers in the U.S.," says Campbell.

By the way, this article is two years old, funny how some things never change, they just get worse!

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=6314

With the HarpoCons in Charge hopefully we can extract even better deals than Quisling Mulroney managed.

Sometimes it would be better to give the required notice, sweep up our chips and walk away from the table.

I HAVE succummed to climate change despare.

After more than 10 years of getting around by bike and transit I signed the papers on a new car yesterday. If everyone else is gonna shit on this planet until it's dead, theres nothing I can do about it.

I give up.

I tried leading by example.. Lord knows I tried... but every single year of the past 10 years greenhouse gas emissions have gone up, SUVs and Hummers have become more popular, and the pliticians both liberal and conversative have flattly refused to make even the slightest attempt at the problem.

I can tell you I wont feel the slightest ping of guilt driving my new car around.

Just got back from sunny and fresh air Vancouver to "country" home down the valley here (where more smog seems to collect than there)after attending EEPSA Environmental Educators Prov. Specialists Assoc. (BCTF) and GVRD co-sponsored Conference.
I was lucky to go as registration filled up very early and I was lucky to hear the keynote speaker Dr.William Rees! I couldn't help but wonder as he presented his thesis of how we got ourselves into this unpretty predicament;if it is mankind's arrogance that has separated homo sapien species from ecology since "The Enlightenment" days of Descartes.
The mistaken Myth is that of an artificial construct called "Progress". To my mind this arrogant separation has gobbled up resources and people as commodities for long enough!
How do we get unstuck from the "Tar Sands and Oil" babies? Maybe the better question (from Dr. Rees) is How much of the earth's surface resources(my personal footprint) is dedicated to supporting me in the style to which I am accustomed?As it turns out,First World individuals use up 4-10 hectars; Third World folk get by with 1/2 hectar...Globalization is really neocolonialism.
So,as Einstein said,"You can never solve a problem at the same level that created it" So this is too important to leave to the powers that be.
Like chrisyak and bytesmiths have previously stated; take small achieveable steps and don't let hopelessness detract from consistent belief and action.Change one small,personal behavoir at a time and soon your vision and values shift and become more purposeful,ie; turn off lights when you're done,lower thermostats and throw on a sweater, walk to the store for that item or try a garden in a few tomato pots next Spring and seek out some local produce-support home-grown...etc.
I hear tell of those eco-villages sprouting up around the world;even here in B.C. Could the Tyee highlight those cutting edge wholistic folks???

Hey Fiat lux, human innovation and brain power now creates wealth and progress. Technology will save the environment and it won’t have to become a simple zero sum "cost of doing business". The days of cheap fossil fuel exploitation are nearing their end and we'll start to see new technologies take the lead for energy creation (see my postings earlier on solar power).

As for the rest of your postings about moving to a collective/coop style economy and dismantling large corporations, well, it was tried and failed. Soviet Union and similar Brave New Worlds. Besides, a movement to collectivism will destroy the tax base and we'll lose of social safety net and health care system. We need those large corporations to keep people employed on high wages so they pay taxes. It is the turn-over of money throughout the economy which maintains the tax base and keep us in this cushy life-style we enjoy in Canada.

Canary wrote:

Umm.. yah, most people do do all those little things - THEY DONT MAKE A DENT.

If you live in the valley, and own a big gas guzzler, it makes NO FUCKING DIFFERENCE if you also grow a dozen of your own tomatos. You're better off taking the bus and buying your tomatos at safeway you fucking moron.

I used to think the problem was people just didnt believe in global warming.

But now i see that even the people who believe in global warming, and profess their desire to do everything they can to reverse it, are, for the most part, no doing enough to reverse it. If everyone was like Canary, global warming would be far worse than it is now.

So if even the people who understand global warming and want to stop global warming, continue to ESCALATE their own personal destruction of the planet, then what hope is there?

This article mentions graying white men being the people who are fighting for the environment. This is delusional of the baby boomers. While there are a few exceptions, it appears that the majority of the baby boomer generation does not give a damn about the environment.

Baby boomers should start taking responsibility for the carnage they have brought on the environment with their 25 years of conspicuous consumption, shameless greed, monster homes, monster SUVs etc. etc. Is it an accident that most CO2 growth has occurred while the baby boomers were here consuming to their hearts’ content? History will ultimately judge this generation as one of the all-time worst (and this generation includes those leading lights George W Bush, Cheyney and the rest). What a disgrace.

Passaglia's Left Foot:

You're doing it again:

You clearly have not understood what Ed Deak is writing - nor the point he making.

You need to go back and try harder. You can't 'create' wealth. If you don't understand this simple fact it means you're just playing with the same smoke and mirrors that the top 2% of the world's elite has always used to give the impression that things are really 'getting' better.

The bills eventually have to be paid.

steerpike wrote...

Yeah it is tough to lead by example, I am trying a few things, but it is hard. On a trip to California, I was shocked to see how they simply collected and through their beer bottles in the garbage at the end of the party.

Sheesh, and that is a state with an energy crisis!?

But you are wrong about making a difference. It is like paying interest on a mortagage, although it may not seem like much, over 25 years, it is a $hitload of money.

Same with pollution, a few minor things sets the standard for behavior is enough people do it.

Kinda like my cross-border shopping behavior. Started to get frustrated with BC Bussiness supporting the BC Liberals...... so I might as well deal directly with Uncle Sam himself, and cut out the fat cat middle man.

Oh.... the cycle continues.

Anyone know about importing a fossil-fuel burning car up from the States?

And I know you feel guilt - I do!

Alci.... there's no point in talking reason with the faithful. Especially with those who can't read anything else but the scriptures of their own poison.

Ed Deak.

I disagree Alci, technological innovation creates wealth without a hige environmental footprint. I think you and Ed Deak are stuck in a Malthusian world where we are limited by the physical earth's carrying capacity. Human brain power trumps the earth's carrying capacity.

And Ed's suggestion of moving away from central banking?! What, the gold standard? He even suggests it is this abstract concept causing environmental degradation. Hey Ed, how about greed? If you figure out a way to eliminate that from the human condition then you might be onto something. I'm not holding my breath for humans to change – they’ll always be greedy and tweaking the money supply isn’t going to change it.

I'm looking to technology instead. Look at innovations in drug design and the growth in life expectancy in the West. Look at mobile phones, digital cameras, Internet communications and the increase in quality of life. Energy will be next for a quantum leap. Blind optimism? Perhaps, but I doubt it.

Then there are the little things:
- cheap biodegradable plastics:
http://news.com.com/Here+comes+the+biodegradable+fork/2100-11398_3-6108782.html?tag=nl.e496

Genetic design improving food production:
http://www.indiaenews.com/technology/20060721/15635.htm

Solar power of course.

These all have a small enviro footprint plus massive positive outcomes and quality of life improvements. If we can figure out a way to get China and India to embrace such technologies then we’ll be in decent shape for continued progress and a continuation of our standard of living without trashing the environment.

Sorry.

That's just another example of where you're wrong PLF - it's the same greed and misanthropy that drives the elites you take your marching orders from. Time to take off the blinders.

There's an interesting article in the New York Times magazine today about a 'scientist' who wasn't really one - he was actually an entrepreneur and a very successful one - you might want to take the half-hour it would take you to read it.

Technology won't save us. The truth just might.

Why would China and India accept the kinds of limitations we've patently refused to accept ourselves? These people, other than the ones who think the way you do, are not all stupid.

Yes of course, steerpike;it makes little difference to many who are accustomed to instant gratification that we are groomed towards in this society, that I would grow a couple of tomato plants in a pot as a meaningful gesture.
It is empowering to me. The rebellion against a morally bereft consumer culture grows bit by bit. How did slavery within plantation economy become illegal?
How did the Berlin Wall fall? How did Aparteid crumble? Small actions against overwhelming odds, as it seemed at the time.
Your knee-jerk reaction to my posting suggests an overwhelming dispair. Hang on...we are headed into the dark night, for sure. But we all have to decide at what point we can start out on our walk of solidarity. Don't you agree?
I have 6 grandchildren and my heart aches for their future.I am doing what I can start out to do in a Gandhi way of "spinning my own thread" every day.
Bless you too, in whatever you can passionately find to do that is friendly to our mother earth and those of us who find nourishment here.

Moat

One assumption on your part is that the large areas of the pine forest subject to infestation are a disaster. What if the pine forest was never really supposed to be as big as it is now. What if a large scale infestation is normal for warmer periods of climate.

Harvesting the forest for wood to be turned into lumber is a real good way to take more carbon out of circulation at least for a few years. The forest will grow back, maybe not to it's original mix of species but it will grow back thus locking up more carbon for a while.

My whole point is that, for the most part, people think that the status quo is normal. The panic sets in when change occurs. There just isn't any guarantee that all large comets and meteors orbiting the sun are going to miss the planet so what is the true magnitude of global warming in the grand scheme of things.

We can moderate our effects on the planet to a certain degree but it just isn't going to be enough unless you want to start bombing more people back to the stone age than are already there now.

Get ready for the change. It is coming.

snert:
You actually don't have a point.

The problem is there is no panic - panic indicates that people have actually grasped the problem and that's when they'll actually get busy and take up the issue in a thoroughgoing way.

The fact that our 'government' purports to provide 'leadership' on this issue with the current do nothing (clean air) act is certainly indicative that pee wee Rambo believes in the status quo.

But not much else, sadly!

If there's anything that might be the end of the human race it is GM seeds and foods.

There's no scientific proof that any GM seed may have brought any benefits, no reduction in chemical use, and no independent research has been done on the health effects, to protect the companies' "intellectual properties".

The only purpose for GM seeds is that farmers have to buy them every year, increasing the profits of multinationals, like Monsanto etc., while destroying the most efficient food production system, the family farm and replacing it with corporate monocropping, similar to Soviet
kolkhozes.

As far drugs are concerned, the increase in life expectancies is minimal, the costs are incredible and growing, but their overall, beneficial effects on health is highly questionable.

50 years ago there were no children with cancers, no breast cancers to speak of, and the overall cancer rate was about 2%. Now it is 30-40% and growing by the day.

Thanks to the chemicalization of the air, foods and waters.

Ed Deak.

Alcibiades

So the issue is not being taken up in a thoroughgoing way by people who have not yet panicked or the people who are already taking it up have panicked in a thoroughgoing way or panicking leads to thoroughgoingness in dealing with issues like this that have induced it in some people. Which is it?

As "Coping with Climate Dread" is the title of the article that heads this thread I figured the word panic was not too much of a stretch.

PLF
I don't know why I or anybody bothers, we must be masochists, but here goes.
I don't recall Fiat actually saying anything about "zero sum," tho I felt that was a term that applied to what he was saying. But for one short and one long sentence you manage to buy into and try to sell a whole lot of lies - maybe you should work for Pee Wee Rambo, his message is getting confused lately, it couldn't be that his message sucks!

Yep we need them large corporations to employ folks at them high wages. Do you mean Wal-Mart, the largest employer these days, or Cargill, maybe MacDonalds, or maybe the construction firms at the coast that want to bring in slaves....oops, I meant guest workers who pay those high wages. Oh yeah, those high taxes those high earners pay, I guess you don't pay any attention to who gets the tax cuts from the Bush Administration or the Campbell cabal.

Then there is that cushy life style. I assume you mean in West Van and Whistler. How's about the cushy life style on the Downtown Eastside, or any Indian Reserve that doesn't have casinos or handy access to cigarettes to smuggle. Or how about the displaced farmers by AgriBusiness in Latin America, Asia and Africa. You know the ones that used to be able to live by a small mixed crop traditional agriculture and now live in cardboard boxes and sift through the garbage left behind by the 2% that have 80% of the wealth, yet still aren't happy and want the rest of it as well. Why don't you take a holiday in cushy sunny Darfur and share the cushy lifefstyle with a foreign flavor. Get a grip!

The proximity of death has the power to concentrate the mind. It hasn't yet reached that point for enough people. They have other things on their mind - in Vancouver at least some of the time worrying about how they are going to find a way to live decently in a city where close to 70% of the average middle class income must go just for shelter.

These things are not unrelated.

But, without some real leadership - which we are clearly not going to get from any politician (other than, ironically, Arnold Swarzenegger) to this point - and certainly not from Stephen Harper whose only concern is finding a way to finesse a majority government by pandering to enough diverse groups within this society and keeping his corporate enablers happy.

So, bring on the panic. It may be our only hope.

The frogs just think it’s a swimming pool.

Hi Ed, you are right on about the GM seeds, they are like evil spawn of the devil and could ultimately lead to the inability of the human race to feed itself at all. It is the clean up hitter in the line up against genetic diversity that used to protect crops and people from disease.

The French wine industry would be extinct now if grapes resistant to diseases threatening the French vines hadn't developed in California from stock that had originally come from Europe. The genetic diversity WAS a line of defense that is rapidly disappearing and what will technology have to offer then - plastic food?

It's more profitable for those benevolent corporations that PLF worships to sell seed. It's also more profitable to make withdrawals at the bank with a gun from other peoples' accounts, until they catch up with you, and they will. Sounds good to me, I'm really glad a bunch of assholes sitting on yachts leafing through their stock portfolios think maximizing already grotesque profits is worth risking the survival of the species.

Does PLF even have a left foot? If so why hasn't he amputated it? It could spread leftness through his system and infect his brain, if it can be found.

For cushy lifestyle PLF could also try hanging out in some once busy resource town that became expendable in the plans of some CEO's hundreds or thousands of miles away. Meet fallers that now have learned how to say "would you like fries with that?"

Science Magazine “The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC’s purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth’s climate is being affected by human activities: “Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations” [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members’ expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise” [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: “The IPCC’s conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue”
Work with that Harris

Canary, i dont think the atmosphere cares about your gestures or your well meaning intentions.

Either you can reduce your greenhouse gas emissions in a very substantial way, or you cant. And if you cant, then your 6 grandchildren are going to living in a very different, and probably less pleasant world.

But go ahead, tell them you knew global warming was happening, and you wanted to do something about it... but all you did was grow a few tomatos in your garden and put on an extra sweater.

I'm sure they will understand. But I cant pretend I do.

The west expects China and India to either stay as they are, or jump way past us directly to extremely clean technologies.

That aint gonna happen. They're not gonna be satisfied riding bicycles for ever. And they're not gonna have the money to suddenly cover their whole county is solar panels and wind turbines.

Westerners think they absolutly NEED to live in the suburbs and NEED an SUV because they have 3 kids. I dont know.. i guess before SUVS no one had children...? Honestly, people are so dumb it scares me...

Hi Again. I appreciate your cordial reply, steerpike. Actually I do grow tomatoes in pots on my back verandah, every summer but I must admit it is getting more difficult to find original (nonGM)seed. I'll have to do what many others have been practising for a while; saving seed. Heaven knows they keep growing out of my compost heap.

It might surprise you to know that I am seen around the neighbourhood quite often on my bike to the store.Maybe that is a substantial gesture and maybe it's not enough for some.But each one of us has to start somewhere on the continuum.

My biggest decision was that I live close to where I work so that I can walk as often as possible.I don't commute anymore but moved closer.Yes, I try to walk the talk to be true to my belief but also to set an example of integrity to my family.
The longest journey begins with a single step.I believe we must take the footprint message now wherever we go. Keep the faith!

It appears we share some similar priorities rkewen. The Downtown Eastside and native reserves in BC are outrageous and this is where our government needs to be spending money. Not on hot air projects with little or no value to the environment (as the Federal Liberals proposed). Specifically the Kyoto Accord would have cost absolutely billions of dollars and jobs and led to no real improvement in the environment or temperature reduction. It was a giant waste of money. We should be using these tax dollars for problems we can realistically fix - Downtown Eastside, reservations plus broader public policy goals like reducing AIDS in developing nations. I'm with you all the way on these issues.

But spare me of the adolescent rhetoric about big corporations being the root of all evil. There are some good and some bad, they are not going to go away thus they simply have to be directed and legislated into doing more good than bad.

GM is still in its infancy, but if some of these innovations can be perfected then we'll be able to feed the developing world and avoid some of these repeating phases of mass starvation.

Hey Steerpike, I also fear China and India will embrace Western consumerism and start producing as much CO2 per capita as we do. That would be a disaster for the planet. We have to get clean technologies over there and implemented. As long as solar and other clean technologies make better sense and provide a better return on investment than coal then these countries will embrace it. They are not stupid. They will do whatever makes financial sense. With a few more innovations the clean alternatives will start to compete with fossil fuels and will be the logical answer for China and India as well as us. We’re very close to making this a reality. It will simply take a little more R&D to get this done. The clean technology “tipping point” is near.

Passaglias Left Foot

Care to elaborate on just what else other than solar power constitutes clean technology and how it will allow 2/3 of the world population to increase their energy consumption enough to allow them to live up to their newfound expectations on life?

Unfortunately, old Newton figured it out 300 years ago that all actions cause equal reactions.

Therefore, no matter where the energy comes from, the reactions will be the same, which, in economic terms means that there's no "win-win", only "win-pay" and global warming is the payment. The same applies to any and all new technologies.

Yes, hi tech can, or rather could be very beneficial in certain fields, but very destructive in others, mainly because for profit demands. GM is a crime wave and should be wiped out tomorrow.

My 4 year old HP computer was acting up early this year, so I went to a local store to see what they have? As I was looking, a saleswoman started talking to me and was really surprised that I was using a 4 year old computer, "They only make them last a year, or two now..." she said.

And she was trying to sell me something. Most people, including her, don't realize that it takes up to 100,000 litres of water to make a single computer chip and the old machines are dumped in China where kids take tham apart with bare hands, getting poisoned in the process. This and other hi tech crap is the reason for water shortages and much of the pollution, found even in the middle of the oceans

So, I asked an expert friend to build me a custom made machine with super parts, that will last indefintely and it cost me less than the store bought junk.

The same goes for many other products, that appear to be "cheap" to buy, but break down fast and cause pollution and waste. Look at the tremendous waste that goes into new cars to make them fashionable and irreparable.

I happen to have a good, worldwide selection of scientist friends, including a chemistry prof. There are about 200,000 chemicals in use today, of which about 12 or 15,000 have been thoroughly tested for health effects. The rest is used in foods and all over without the faintest idea of their effects, while store bought governments are cutting back on testing facilities

As far "big business creating jobs" is concerned, anybody who believes this crap is a gullible fool.

90% of the jobs are created by companies employing less than 100. Big business is grossly overcapitalized and its main effort is concentrated on killing jobs and benefits. US companies are now "restructuring" to kill the pensions of their former employees, leaving them with nothing.

As a lifelong private enterpriser, started my first business in BC in 1957, I hate big business with a passion and would like to see the majority of their CEOs and boards in jail for lying, fraud ,theft, extortion, expropriation of the properties of others, buying governments, etc. etc.

Small business has to remain honest to keep their customers, but the big guys, especially the multinationals survive and thrive on crime, jacking up prices every day, and people have no choice, but to support them, while getting poisoned by the junkfoods etc they sell.

I sold 11 organically raised calves last month for a pittance. As those clean, pure meat, calves were loaded on the trucks of the feedlot buyers, they were pumped full of antibiotics, hormones and steroids, etc. It has been proven that every time the animals are moved to ather facilities, the whole process is repeated, until they receive 5-6 times the recommended dosages and people buy and eat that polluted meat and drop the residues into their toilets and the environment.

Chicken you buy in the supermarkets are full of antibiotics etc. The same goes for all foods grown and processed by large businesses. Then we have hospitals full of bald headed kids on chemotherapies and everybody is surprised

So much for the hi tech baloney.

Ed Deak.

I do not think market-based solutions will work. Technology has generally done an excellent job of maximizing economic outputs while minimizing resource inputs, but much of this progress has depended on abundant and cheap oil.

It is foolish to think that we can depend on the application of technology to enable to continue to live as we have always done. There is simply no source of energy with the same density and portability as crude oil and its derivatives. Only a madman or an economist could believe that we will get more and more from less and less until we get everything for nothing.

The only solution, if there is one at all, will be a drastic reduction in our energy demands and a commensurate transfer of technology and capital to developing nations to allow them to eventually gain an equivalent quality of life.

Too many of us hold the belief that a solution will magically appear to enable us to continue to live in the way we have always done. Instead of pouring gasoline into our vehicles, we will pour in hydrogen instead. We will have solar powered 52" TV sets. We will have cold-fusion robot maids and hover cars.

An effort on the scale of the New Deal or war-time mobilization is required, but, then again, we get the politicians we deserve.

Not a surprise, Black, that you've come up with that equality, ie. madman = economist.

I don't think many of us 'do' get the politicians we deserve though...but you're right about the solution.

It'll only come about when all the frogs start feeling uncomfortably warm.

What many here are saying without saying it is : "We need practical, political solutions from honest, intelligent" politicians".
Which makes you insane.

Anyone asking for a politician to step forward and say "hey everybody - time to *have less*" is asking for failure.

Anybody who thinks anyone could step forward and erase the inbred (and I MEAN inbred) suppositions polluting the minds of most is at best, mildly retarded. You're asking a few generations to ignore everything they're been brought up to believe their entitled to. It is part and parcel of "our way of life" to expect :
"A Higher Standard of Living"
"Our Rights"
"Freedom"
A Job, A Home, etc etc etc

But you think that saying uhhhh... "you should really take transit" is a viable political platform?

LOL. Gullible idiot.
People want to "show their status". The entire cachet behind Black Spot sneakers for example, is the conspicuousness of wearing the stupid things.

We're entitled to consume. We're encouraged to consume, we're shown day after day after day that individualism starts with associating the things you own are *YOU*. SUV owners are dickheads. It's okay - they know that. Cell phone people are boorish assholes. It's a given. Home owners are speculators. Who ya gonna call? Ownership is the new and everlasting black my friends.
And yet laughably, some of you utopian blockheads think "less" is gonna sell?
Wow. Are you ever out of the loop.

We're in the process of rapidly globalizing those "entitlements" and will soon enough be force fed back those carefully crafted ideologies in ways we hadn't even begun to imagine. Because (as Mr Deak notes often enough) we forgot (though I think forgetting is too generous - I'd rather believe we just ignored it and shoved the whole messy crapload of accompanying "costs" somewhere where they couldn't be seen - China, Downtown East Side, etc..) that these things have a price.

It brilliant. And funny.
Its like a self induced rape that the naysayers tell us to lie back and let happen.
I quite relish the idea of all you child owners futily breeding another gluttonous dumbass like logjam so they can tear each other to pieces over fresh water.

Thanks Idiots!
The misanthropists win! YAY!!!

steerpike wrote,

You speak the truth, and it kind of hurts. On an individual basis, we dont make the right decisions. Even though we were taught not to fight and take more than we need at both home and school, we tend to forget those basic lessons. Remember sharing?

Man, it is tough watching us go down this road, it is like being an obese person at McDonald's.

Black is right on. Thomas Homer-Dixon writes about an "Ingenuity Gap", in that world problems are increasing in complexity faster than we can fix them. Snert is way off if he thinks that we can simply adapt to change.

Steerpike, you only come here because there is a part of you that still cares. Even though you are a big cynic!

Dissembling Rona-The Freak
http://www.greenparty.ca/mediarelease190.html

Passaglias Left Foot said,

Really you ignoramus, who the fock do you think it was that put out the 200 or so oil well fires that were set by Saddam Husseins retreating army after attacking Kuwait, non other than graying white men, there was enough pollution from those fires that it will take probably 50 years to dissipate, what about the green house gas these fires caused, no one mentions, further more if the Canadians and Americans hadn’t put out those oil well fires, they would still be burning, probably the sun would no longer be visible by now, thank your lucky stars there are graying white men around to these dangerous, dirty, thankless jobs.

So the big contribution of the baby boomers to the environment was putting out Saddam's well fires in 1991. Is that the best you can do? Nice. I'll give you that. Thanks for nothing.

Hey snert, some technology to keep your eye on:
- LED development (could make the cost of lighting almost zero)
- nanotube technology (especially for water filtration). This may help developing countries avoid war over water.
- nuclear (that's right, I count this as a big plus - it generates no CO2 and as long as we can find more uranium it must be considered part of the long-term solution).
- battery technologies of every kind (haven't you noticed how good cell phone batteries are these days?)
- grid-tied solar and wind power (imagine getting credits from BC Hydro for actually contributing electricity to their grid during peak periods! It is happening in California).
- superconductivity and electricity transportation (still a long way off but this has big potential once efficiency is improved)
- hybrids (we'll stretch out those fossil fuels longer than ever)
- coal scrubbers (this is going to be critical)
- GM foods to feed the developing world (I also get queasy about this one and am sympathetic the many comments here by Fiat etc. however I see no other way to avoid millions of people starving).
- drug/protein design. Combine this with genetic targeting and we’ll see life-expectancy continue to increase (there is too much hype in this area however it should ultimately lead to customized drugs)
- on a practical level, cheap clean high temperature ovens/stoves for India and Africa. They currently rely on dung burning low-heat stoves which produce huge amounts of particles, CO2 and all sorts of harmful health side-effects.

Combine these with advances in IT and we could see literacy rates explode in developing countries, higher food production, a reasonable standard of living and hopefully a stabilization of populations as was seen in the West. Imagine a world with inexpensive (clean-ish) energy, access to information/education, enough food production for the population, water. Technology can get us there.

LED development (could make the cost of lighting almost zero)- I doubt it
- nanotube technology (especially for water filtration). This may help developing countries avoid war over water. What about war over water right here in N America?
- nuclear (that's right, I count this as a big plus - it generates no CO2 and as long as we can find more uranium it must be considered part of the long-term solution). waste? proliferation? reliability - all big question marks.
- battery technologies of every kind (haven't you noticed how good cell phone batteries are these days?) NO
- grid-tied solar and wind power (imagine getting credits from BC Hydro for actually contributing electricity to their grid during peak periods! It is happening in California). small stuff so far and very unreliable
- superconductivity and electricity transportation (still a long way off but this has big potential once efficiency is improved)definitely a long way off and extremely costly
- hybrids (we'll stretch out those fossil fuels longer than ever) With a lot of attendant pollution if the tar sands are any indication
- coal scrubbers (this is going to be critical) With a huge water pollution down side
- GM foods to feed the developing world (I also get queasy about this one and am sympathetic the many comments here by Fiat etc. however I see no other way to avoid millions of people starving). This is definitely BS
- drug/protein design. Combine this with genetic targeting and we’ll see life-expectancy continue to increase (there is too much hype in this area however it should ultimately lead to customized drugs) we NEED longer life spans like a hole in the head. Ever been to an old folks home? Drug companies aren't going to save anyone but their shareholders dude - wake up!
- on a practical level, cheap clean high temperature ovens/stoves for India and Africa. They currently rely on dung burning low-heat stoves which produce huge amounts of particles, CO2 and all sorts of harmful health side-effects. Stoves are the least of their problems - you've never been to India have you - dung is one thing they have lots of?

Combine these with advances in IT and we could see literacy rates explode in developing countries, higher food production, a reasonable standard of living and hopefully a stabilization of populations as was seen in the West. Imagine a world with inexpensive (clean-ish) energy, access to information/education, enough food production for the population, water. Technology can get us there.

Baloney. Just like globalization was going to. The first thing we in the west have to do is recognize that we use too much space and use up too much stuff stoking nothing but our own egos. Unless we get over our bad habits none of your half baked ideas will make a difference. Sorry dude. I think we may need those gray beards like woody a little while longer if you can't come up with something better than this. I think you've been reading Wired magazine too long.

While working on a farm in the 50s we sold our eggs and cream to the local creamery. We got a weekly envelope of $$$ for our effors. We ate the beef and pork from our own animals. What has changed? Marketing boards and agri-business put the family farm 'out' of the business of eggs and cream. Without the separated milk we could no longer keep pigs. Now the land is rented and the milking barn empty. What has the change meant? We are now sold eggs from battery hens and warned of samonella if we don't cook the eggs properly. We are now sold meat (and products) and warned of e-coli. Funny we never had this problem eating our own produce or buying locally. And aren't those Prairie feed lots just wonderful where the cattle can stand on a mountain of poop and watch the dust blow 20/30/40kms to settle on the supper dishes of homes downwind? That is what we have now by the folks that believe bigger is better (read $$$$ greed)

Dear Corporal Passaglia of Sector X7,
It's me, Johnny FutureMan.

I'm writing to express my concern that you're rubbing your Decode-A-Future ring too hard and have somehow hurt yourself. As your mommy and daddy have probably told you, too many toys can be a bad thing. Too many toys can take away from your enjoyment of simple things like walking while chewing gum, discovering "Right" from "Left" and what rhymes with "cat".

Sometime we substitute toys for toys that were substituted for toys and well, eventually you or your playmates swallow a small, loosened plastic part, you turn blue and if you're lucky, off you go to the hospital. Swallowing your toys can lead to ass-fix-ee-ay-shun which can cause things like brain dama...

Oh.
Jesus. Sorry kid.
Never mind.

Johnny FutureMan.

Moat

Not 'can' adapt but will or perish. There is a disclaimer here and that is if you live in BC but not in Whistler or Richmond you should be OK.

Passaglias Left Foot

You forgot one major technology, for want of a better word, and that is birth control. If steps are not taken to reduce or control the human biomass on this planet things will get worse in any event.

The biggest cause for world hunger is forced urbanization and chemicalized agribiz monocropping that destroys the land and causes endless environmental problems, but it is very profitable for big business and so their bought and paid for governments allow it to proceed unabated.

The solution for the world's economic and environmental problems is the development of the highest degree of self sufficiency from the family to community and national levels. We've been developing and doing it for many years and are reaping the benefits at very low cost, so I'm not talking about some harebrained theory.

The main reason for "globalization" is the destruction of self sufficiency at all levels and the democratic decision making powers of peoples to force submission under a collectivized corporate dictatorship. A cleaned up and gilded version of the Soviet politbureau system.

This is what they call "Wealth creation".

Ed Deak. Big Lake.

Until enough people realize that the current path is phuked, we are destined to fail.

I am thankful I did not have any kids; besides many would just pass the responsibility on to them ("oh the kids will solve the problems created by us!).

I think our only hope is natural disasters that shake us from our delusion that everything is going to be just fine, don't worry, be happy!

LOL Johnny Futureman - I enjoyed the dig.

Quite right snert - the items I mention are the tip of the iceberg.....hmmm mentioning icebergs isn't a good idea in a debate about the environment.

Alci and Fiat. It is really easy to shoot down ideas in this forum (I do it all the time). But what is your answer to the environ/global issues we face? Apparently to sit back in an easy chair, prognosticate about The System and do what?

Freebear offers a negative and sad comment. Another supporter of depopulation to save trees. Clearly the Enviro Pornographers and Enviro Pimps have got to him/her. The world is not about to end. That is total crap. We will adapt, migrate where necessary and overcome these enviro problems through a combination of high oil prices (market mechanism to ration resources), innovation, and technology transfer to developing countries. It aint rocket science.

What's the answer?

First of all it's not all about YOU.

Second. Get ready to do some real planning and realize that there are simple, progressive and functional solutions to most of these problems - many of which Ed has been pointing out on these pages for ages - you just haven't been paying attention.

Third. Recognize that quality of life and life-style are very different things.

Fourth. Understand that community means something more than the guys you spend the weekend with playing video games.

Fifth. Don't pretend that the technology (much of which has gotten us to the pass we're in today) is going to bail us out this time.

Sixth. Stop believing everything that people say - especially those people who really only want to sell you things.
DID you read the piece that's been hanging off the side board here for weeks about the sweatshops where Steve Jobs has I-pods made? Begin to wonder why it wasn't on the front pages of every paper in the country.

Seventh. Remember that the way we measure material prosperity may be a huge bad joke - don't rely on economists to explain the way the economy works.

Eighth. Take those speaker buds out of your ears and start listening to what your neighbours are actually saying. Like.

Nine. Remember that your brothers and sisters all around the world aren't that much different from you and you all deserve an even break.

Ten. The rule of law is a cruel joke for people who have no guarantee of basic equity of opportunity.

Eleven. With the very best efforts and intentions, things may still get a lot worse before they get better, and, it may already be too late for most of us.

"Freebear offers a negative and sad comment. Another supporter of depopulation to save trees. Clearly the Enviro Pornographers and Enviro Pimps have got to him/her. The world is not about to end. That is total crap. We will adapt, migrate where necessary and overcome these enviro problems through a combination of high oil prices (market mechanism to ration resources), innovation, and technology transfer to developing countries. It aint rocket science."

Do not speak for me, sure you can quote me, but don't pretend you know who I am!

I am an environmentalist, naturalist and urban planner and designer, among other things.

My heart aches that so many people (obviously in North America) seemed lulled into a false sense of security that we can continue to pollute and make our 'nests' bigger without any consequences.

We can do better, but until we ween ourselves off of fossil fools; do so much more locally; and live together; we will continue to shittte in our own nest!

Alciabades did a good job of rebutting you delusion. Thanks.

I think what also irks me is that the planning profession seems to content to just go along with the delusion.

Where are the progressive, thoughtful, creative, human planners?

Of course I am not surprised, most people do not acknowledge that they have been deluded until they are on their deathbed!

Alcibiades

I don't know which planet you are from but everybody on this planet is the end product of someone who thought of themselves first. That is human nature. That's why communism never worked. There is not a rulebook on the planet that says life has to be fair to everyone. That doesn't mean you have to go to extremes to see that only your spawn survives but it does happen.

People have to realize that they are in charge of making the choices in their own life not someone else who says their way is better.

FWIW Everybody can have fun at this site. I didn't notice it posted on this page. I may have missed it.

http://flood.firetree.net/

PLF said:

PLF,

Are you serious...??

Do you really believe in the humans ability being enough to dig us out of the chaos we have created here on Earth? Are you truly suggesting that the way we do it is by increasing the price of oil?? :-O oh,my god...!!!!

You must have to knock down a few walls when you enter a room to create space for you and your ego dude...

Freebear said:

Mine too brother...

Alcibiades said:

...sadly true Alcibiades. Thank for your thoughtful post. Well said. :-)

Alcibiades said:

You know snert, Alchibiades was suggesting an approach to life that reflects global peace. How could you have a problem with that...??

Peace man,

-Bear

snert
There is no doubt that we have, as a species, a bad record for caring about the other. If you knew anything about philosophy and sociology though - not to mention comparative religion and political science - you'd know your statement is just plain wrong. And you'd know that there are western cultures where the interests of fellow citizens are not taken for granted or thrown in the scrap heap if they don't conform.

And they aren't communist countries either.

I don't have either the inclination or the time to complete your obviously deficient education and I'll take comfort in the knowledge that you only have one vote - if you're actually sensible enough to stop having fun and take the time to exercise it.

We make of life what we will – you, sadly, not much.

Someone suggested yesterday that a snert was something which could be safely ignored. I guess they were right.

Right to Bear

Hmmm, I wonder? Alcibiades the use of this name speaks volumes about egos.

Alcibiades

And you went to what school to polish this ability to determine how other people view their own lives.

There is a major problem with wanting world peace. On the surface it appears to be a noble goal but in reality it is the death of civilization. Everything becomes static. Colours alter to become gray. The differences that make us what we are get swept away. I'd be willing to bet money that Alcibiades would be loathe to give away any of the advantages he feels that he has to obtain that goal.

Don't pray for world peace just less war.

snert said:

snert, what do you mean by this statement?-Bear

I'll let you make up your own mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcibiades

Hey Bear, increasing the price of oil is essential for making these alternative energies economically viable. As all the Lefties will tell you, the current market (private) cost of fossil fuels does not capture social costs. The environment is a social cost.

My green friends are all very happy about what is happening in the Middle East. $80 oil prices are finally making alternative energy economically feasible on a private cost basis. This of course reflects the sociopathic gene characteristics of a harcore Green.

As for wishing for world peace, are you also waiting for the tooth fairy? Humans are not wired for world peace. Never have been.

snert,

What we are talking about is global or world peace dude, not someones blog name. come'on...

...and hey, how do you know what motivates a person to choose a particular name. I mean, maybe you named yourself "snert" because you are NOT annoying...hummmmmm, o.k., bad example. But you know what I mean. You can't say dude.

snert said:

Do you think ever so little of human potential and intension??

Peace man,

-Bear

I was depressed beefore. Reading much of this commentary had made me suicidal.

Patrick Condon

Hey PLF,

How can we save the environment by tearing it up? The Alberta oil sands, mining companies, and logging companies are tearing up the earth right now and they all started out as an "innovative" idea.

PLF, there is plenty of money to spend on sustainable, green appoaches without increasing oil prices. There is enough “fat”in these companies to put towards the health of our environment. I think what you’re suggesting is just a stall so as to be able to continue using the earth in an unsustainable way. Raise the gas prices to put toward green things, come on. This is an absurd concept. There is money for green things, but from the corporations and the government, is there the ethical will to implement it?? So far, what I am seeing generally is nothing shy of corporate green washing... spend a little, and take a lot. $$$

Bottom line PLF, is it's about simplifying our lives, and not allowing consumerism to drag us under. Downsizing the expectation we have of the earth, and downloading the egotistical B.S. we carry with us all day, every day. Ego blocks us from recieving the truth.

It’s time for some honesty righty’s…

Our Earth is Sick.

Peace,

-Bear

PLF.....when will start learning to read?

I've spent a lifetime developing and building practical, energy efficient, self sufficient and sustainable economic systems, am still working at it and have been writing on our experience for many years.

When you'll find me in an easy chair theorizing, I'll be dead, or unable to move.

The worst thing that could happen to humanity would be the discovery of some unlimited energy source. It would be the beginning of perpetual war to expropriate it for self appointed ruling classes to enslave the majority, as it has been with oil, the power of superior arms and the swallowed propaganda of "my god is stronger than your god". Meaning both religions and economic systems. Like communism and market capitalism, the biggest crime waves in history.

I hope it will never happen, but the chances of it happening are zilch, in any case.

Ed Deak.

Hi Ed,

Right on, and spot on with what you said. My head hurts from nodding so much. I always enjoy and appreciate you brother.

Peace to you,

-Bear

Fiat lux

Is that not an ongoing struggle right now? Been spending too much time at the bench, have we?

I'm not surprised that you appear to get much of your education a la Wikipedia - it shows.

But then you call yourself s n e r t - and we all know what that means.

Ed

You must have been out of Hungary by 1956 I'd reckon. Still, today must bring back memories.

Cheers

I left Hungary in Dec 1944 with the army for training in Germany. Wounded in Poland but not hospitalized, disarmed by the nazis, marched across Germany into Austria as working troops, digging tanktraps and ditches on the way, where the end of the war caught us and I was under sentence of death for "treason".

Hospitalized in Goisern, Austria, about 3 days after the end of the war, bedridden for 3 months, volunteer orderly for 11 more. Worked for the US Army in Austria, taken to England by the govt. in 1948, came to Canada as British citizens in 1955. 24 years in Vancouver, 27 years here in the Cariboo.
Registered voter, as British citizen with full Canadian citizenship rights, in 1956.

How is that for bio in a nutshell ???

Cheers, Ed.

I'm glad you were here then, in '56, and not there - although I think some 39,000 of your former countrymen did come to Canada after the tanks rolled in in 1956.

Thanks Ed.

Alcibiades

I'm surprised. Wiki seems to be an acceptable source for you. But then you seem to be prone to confusing intellect with education. By the nature of your comments you appear to be bluffing on both counts.

I never use wikipedia, ever. If you'd been around here much you'd know my opinon of it.

I also never bluff.

Alcibiades

I never use wikipedia, ever. If you'd been around here much you'd know my opinon of it.

I'm sorry, my error. You use the information that someone else digs up. Hence the

comment.

Then you must be proud of the fact that you resort to the tactics of a loser. This would also explain the nature of your comments. One cheap shot after another. Very erudite.

Oh, what makes you think that? That I've used information, as you put it, dug up by someone else?

Alcibiades

A search through this page. Of course that is just MHO. If you have another source feel free to quote it.

WHat are you talking about?

To me snert simply means
Says nothing, endlessly repeating trash.

What did you think it meant?

Hey Ed, I don't buy your logic on the negative side of cheap energy. I don't think anyone could monopolize cheap energy for long. Big oil might try to block it, but ultimately cheap energy would be shared. What an amazing prospect for developing nations - it would allow water treatment plants which would solve enormous problems facing such countries. It would also facilitate education (while snert and Alci may quibble over the power of Wikipedia and the internet for education, I think it would be fantastic for kids in developing nations - a multi-lingual source of basic knowledge).

I'm less skeptical than you about the power of The System to suppress such a development. However, you've clearly been around the block a few times more than me so I'll just have to hope and maintain my optimism for now. We'll see.

I met a Hungarian a few years ago who followed a similar path as you. He was in his late 60s at the time and could still dribble and pass a soccer ball like Pele. Good sturdy genes.

PLF
You might want to investigate what’s been happening in the United States relative to the importation of cheap ethanol from Brazil. Alternatively, the action of GM relative to their own very successful (and now non-existent) electric car.

As to the amount of knowledge that the current generation of students actually has. I've noticed that, if you take away their computers, most young people are so utterly ignorant that they couldn't be relied upon to do anything more difficult than pump gas.

A day or two ago I happened to see a young man in a brand-new black Land Rover - probably cost at least $60,000.

Anyway, he had a rapidly deflating tire and, upon noticing that his car was no longer steering properly, he got out and examined the situation. Then he got back into the vehicle and took off - I was in my own car and tried to convince him to stop by waving and pointing to the tire. I followed him for two or three blocks but, when the tire disintegrated and the rim started to scrape on the pavement I decided I'd had enough and drove away.

Some people are hopeless. Those who ignore what's happening to the environment are behaving like that man. They're driving on flat tires when they should know enough to stop and change the tires.

Optimism without knowledge and experience is a waste of energy.

You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Ummmm, no. If we invested half the time and money we've wasted on war on peace in its many permutations we'd look at Adam and Eve's original home as a bit of a fixer-upper compared to the world we could build.

Your linear-centric view of time hobbles you. Nothing has ever changed... but everything is always changing. Pay attention to the world around you!

Alcibiades

You used the word we. A little feeble mindedness showing up.

Stump

If the people who run the world actually used words like "linear-centric" we'd be in deep trouble. Oh, we are in deep trouble maybe deeper trouble.

As far as being able to create a better Eden, start crunching the numbers and use the total world population this time. Then remember that although unfortunate, war has provided the impetuous for creativity in many areas that help humanity as well as harm it.

On that note things seem to be more or less back on topic so I'll leave the thread to Alcibiades to abuse as he sees fit.

Even a partial list of advances made w/out the 'benefit' of war disproves your point. Let's start with the telephone. Add in some pasteurization. Can't forget plumbing. Plenty of useful things have come along w/out war.

You could make the argument that trauma victims have benefited from battlefield surgery, certainly computers are an offshoot of conflict, but it's far from certain those things needed hostilities to come into being. War may speed up the development of technologies (sometimes good, sometimes bad) but to assert war has made the world a better place suggests to me your experience w/ the phenomenom is, like mine, purely theoretical.

I wonder if Picasso would have preferred to NOT have the inspiration for the painting Guernica?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20061023.NORWAYS23/TPStory/

Norwegians roiling in oil; Sitting on a raft of petrodollars has only
served to provoke anger

DOUG SAUNDERS
23 October 2006
The Globe and Mail page A1

OSLO -- By any measure, Kristoper Holfeldt should be one of the happiest
people in the world. As a delivery-truck driver in Oslo, he earns almost
$70,000 a year in one of the world's most equal society. His daughter
takes advantage of free university tuition, his free public medical and
pension benefits are stellar, and he lives in the healthiest and
best-paid society on Earth.

On top of that, Norwegians keep getting richer. Their oil fields in the
North Sea and the Arctic have turned this into the Saudi Arabia of the
north. Oil and gas sales pay Norway's government $1-billion (U.S.) a
week; this country of fewer than five million people now has a savings
account that next year will hit $300-billion. And Norway has tapped only
a quarter of the oil and a 10th of the gas that are estimated to be
trapped beneath the Barents Sea.

But Mr. Holfeldt, like an amazing number of Norwegians, says he is
anxious and unhappy - and he blames the oil money.

"We may be a lot richer, but this is not the happy place it used to be,"
he said as he unloaded boxes of meat patties at a pub that will turn
them into $16 hamburgers to be consumed with $10 beers. This is the most
expensive capital city in the world, but even measured by purchasing
power, Norwegians are the world's wealthiest consumers - although this
seems to give them little joy.

"Before, we were just poor fishermen but we all co-operated. Now all we
seem to do is fight about the money."

.........Read the rest on the website.
---------------------

PLF. Hungarian males in that country have 10 year lower life expectancy rates than the rest of Europe, on account of Soviet era environmental destruction and Western industrial pollution landing on their heads.

There are only 2-3 survivors of my highschool class and only 1 who could be called healthy, the others surviving on drugs. Here in the Cariboo, at 79 I can still do a good 5-6 hours a day of physical work on the ranch, we'are self sufficient to a great degree, practicing artists with my wife, our next show in Oct.07, cause all kinds of grief to screwball economists and "right wingers" around the world and take no medications.

God bless Canada and strike those who want to sell it off to "wealth creating multinationals" and the US empire.

Ed Deak.

And more good news!

From CTV News:

"The lifestyle of developed nations is going to wear out our planet, according to the conservation group World Wildlife Fund. WWF released its 2006 Living Planet Report Monday.

WWF released its 2006 Living Planet Report Monday in Beijing. The report notes that humans have been living beyond our means for 20 years, consuming more resources than the planet can sustainably produce.

"The bottom line of this report could not be clearer," said Carter Roberts, president of World Wildlife Fund, "for 20 years we've lived our lives in a way that far exceeds the carrying capacity of the Earth"

The group says if we don't curb our consumption, we will need two planets' worth of natural resources by 2050. This is partially because of a population explosion, from three billion people in 1960 to about 6.5 billion people today."

Perhaps 'all' environmentalists should declare that we are taking a year off to re-charge 'our' batteries, and 'we' will leave looking after Mother Earth to the government and business sectors and the general public!

Good luck! Try not to have an aneurism, stroke, or heart attack!

The more the forced urbanization to jack up the GDP, the bigger the energy and resource waste. Urban people use huge amounts of energy to keep the infrastructures going.

On account of this idiotic policy, to depopulate the rural areas and hand them over to multinational control, our school district # 27 is losing 300 kids per year.

What people will one day have to realize is that the "growth" governments are so yearning for is in fact a drug that kills the human race.

Ed Deak.

freebear

Good points freebear. Canada's ecological footprint is right up there with the big boys - number 4. Only behind The United Arab Emirates, The USA and Finland.

Ah, PLF, yet again I will emulate Sysiphus and push the boulder that is the empty head of PLF up the hill, only to watch it roll back down.

Anyway your obviously ill-informed statement:

I would suggest that you familiarize yourself with the history of the early electric mass transit systems in Los Angeles. Before you say "What electric mass transit system in L.A.?" and make my point, look into it. Buy 'em up, close 'em down, another version of Chinatown!

oh and freebear, did ya hear the part about that report (Living Planet Report) that said at current rates by mid-century (the time Pee Wee's evironmental program truly kicks in) we will need a second planet to supply our needs?

By the way, the subburbs are the slums of the future - the poor will be warehoused there with no way downtown! The Downtown Eastside will be YaleTown on Steroids because even the rich folks won't be able to afford gas from say Abbotsford, Langley or even PoCo.

Blindness. Self induced perhaps. A defence mechanism to sheild us from unwanted truth. To realize the amount of work and self sacrifice that will be required to dig out of this mess. "But, I was told If I went to university and worked hard, I would become wealthy and have a 4 thousand square foot house, 3 cars, 2 boats, 4 kids and one pony." Oh well, sorry about that. "Surely I will be shielded from this alledged disaster from behind the walls of my gated community?" Well, maybe if you can grow your own food.... "WHAT????!!! Are you FUKKING mad!!!" "What the hell do I know about growing food!" Calm down. Just fill up the basement with canned goods and water bottles..... "What about Friday night dinners downtown, fancy restaurants, Oh my God, what about corn dogs at the PNE...?" Tough break kid. Now move over and make room for the Dolphins, this planets next and rightful guardians...

Here's the link to the pdf of the 2006 Living Planet Report -
http://assets.panda.org/downloads/living_planet_report.pdf

Up the Dolphins - we need 'them' on the ballot.

Lovely story in today's New York Times - after the one yesterday describing the death and destitution in Darfur. You can read it here, if you feel like being sick:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/24/world/africa/24sudan.html?hp&ex=1161748800&en=e924a533c2ed7ba7&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Wow, everyone seems pretty pumped up and feisty today. Your paranoid delusional psychosis of big corporations running the world and our planet about to collapse is really getting the better of you.

Some quick comments:
- Ethanol (just like hydrogen) is a non-starter. Ethanol takes too much energy to produce. Hydrogen has no distribution system and is too difficult to transport and store.
- Norway, like those other oil states, seems to be a mess for two reasons. First, they do not appreciate how lucky they are (many in Canada have this spoilt brat syndrome too). They seem to think oil will solve all their personal problems. Clearly it won’t. Second, scarce resource allocation always creates tension. That is what cheap clean energy like cold fusion will change - energy will no longer be a scarce resource that must be rationed and fought over. It will be taken for granted like water. It is only when such resources become scarce that we start encountering conflicts.
- I look forward to the next generation kicking out the baby boomers and crushing their system of privilege that the boomers have grabbed for themselves and themselves alone. Boomer greed must come to an end. I bet 4 of 5 SUVs are driven by boomers, 4 of 5 monster homes. The young may over-emphasize technology, but at least they're not consumption pigs. Try putting the average baby boomer in front of a computer. You'll see looks of shock and fear. Hilarious stuff.

P L Foot- the point, quite simply, was that the entrenched powers in the US economy are not interested in permitting the import of cheap available ethanol from Brazil. You might want to do a little more 'reading'.

The Agriculture lobby doesn't want the competition. If you'd actually done any real research instead of sitting in front of that computer you love so much you'd know that.

As to baby boomers not using computers. What the F are you talking about. Who do you think invented the PC?

stump

Please go back and read what I said. I made no such assertion.

Just how close does a bullet or bomb have to come to no longer be theoretical?

Well how about doing something about it. It won't be that hard if we all make an effort.

For starters, write provincial and federal politians and demand they spend more on public transit so people have the option of driving less and thus reducing their GHG emmisions.

Rt. Hon. Stephan Harper
Prime Minister of Canada

;

;

;

;

;

;

;

;

;

;

;

;

;

cc:

Hon. Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities
Hon. Bill Graham, Liberal Party and Opposition Leader
Hon. Rona Ambrose, Minister of the Environment
Hon. David Emerson, for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics
Hon. Jack Layton, Leader, New Democratic Party
Hon. John Godfrey, Liberal Critic, Environment
Hon. David McGinty, Liberal Critic, Transport
Hon. Andrew Scott, Liberal Critic, Infrastructure and Communities
Hon. Stephane Dion, MP, Liberal Party leadership candidate
Hon. Michael Ignatieff, MP, Liberal Party leadership candidate
Hon. Peter Julian, NDP Critic, Transport
Hon. Nathan Cullen, NDP Critic, Environment
James Moore, M.P., Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam
Bob Rae, Liberal Party leadership candidate

BC MLA's can be found here:
http://www.leg.bc.ca/mla/3-1-1.htm

Double edged sword this
Information regarding Climate Change
Rona will very likely
Take my big old Ford off the road
So I can invest maybe 30Gs in some vehicle which will pass emmissions testing for a year or two - last time we tried emmission tests mechanics had to detune new cars to pass the tests and retune them to run reasonably
Pushing a wheel barrow full of tools up to my truck the other day I said to the worker beside me: "It's fuel efficient, quiet, and has only a couple of moving parts." He said: " there are tradesmen all over the world who have figured that out." Brought to mind the loads on bicycles and mopeds we saw in south east asia: firewood or charcoal bundles much larger than the rolling stock and a full grown pig off to market somehow balanced on the back of a moped in Cambodia. Counted 24 passengers in a toyota long box (including my wife and myself).

This transport is all fine and dandy for the 3rd world - but it simply won't do for the morning commute in to Metropolis. Imagine pulling up to the Opera in a "tuk tuk".

As a "Boomer" myself, I do not see the benifit to all of us simply dying off quickly. Most prominant Canadian politicians are now younger than I am and appear to still lack wisdom, integrity and grounding some of the "elders" might still provide.

Touché Gav (just carrying on the joke) my man, I see you continue the Mission Impossible of trying to educate the uneducatable. You are correct about the PC, the computer itself was invented by people old enough to give birth to baby boomers. I imagine PLF confronted with an actual computer without the help of Mr. Gates or the Apple boys would be the one breakin' out into a cold sweat.

I'm amazed at how little the younger generation, on average, even knows about computers and how they work - data type, parameter, runtime, code optitimization wha........ Excepting those actually in the field of course. I find most people don't really even know the difference between a database and a spreadsheet.

Regarding Fiat Lux's comment of a day or two ago, I just want to pick a fine nit. I've been generally impressed with the durability of computer hardware overall, surprisingly so actually. What leads to the rapid onset of system obselescence is the ever growing hunger of software that does everything for the user but go to the bathroom for resources, particularly in the case of multimedia applications. It is only thanks to Moore's Law about the doubling of chip capacity that has made it possible to continue this intel cold war to keep raising the stakes. We are rapidly approaching the end of the current ballpark and will have to either get into nano computing or build bigger machines. Miniturization only goes so far until one enters the realm of quantum mechanics.

The upcoming (as usual constantly delayed, likely to be released before finished anyway) Microsoft© OS Vista© won't even deign to allow itself to be installed on a system with less than 512MB of RAM. Meanwhile I have a no-name 386 laptop from 1989 that still works, as long as I don't ask it to run software that is too demanding of resources.

BTW, I'm not typing on that old laptop right now, but I can put it online - so there!

snert
this is what you said:

Now, aside from the fact that I've never seen 'impetuous' used in quite that way before, I don't think that's all that far from what Stump asserted you'd written.

I can think of very few examples since the end of the second world war - and the war had to stop before any improvements could begin - where war's creative powers actually helped anyone.

However, I thought you were leaving.

Good bye.

G, he may have meant that war, and the desperation of war caused research leading to breakthroughs that were later found to have "peacetime" applications, and I will accept that. It doesn't make war a "good" thing however. Maybe salvages a little something from an otherwise hideous waste of human life and massive suffering.

rkewen - having read his other posts, I doubt it. Generally though, the intended and the unintended consequences of war are usually death and destruction.

I can think of two examples where the effects of the 'peace' which came after war have been positive. MacArthur's remake of Japanese society and institutions in the period after the war and the Marshall plan to rebuild Europe. Would they have happened without the war? Of course not. But, without the war they wouldn’t have been necessary either.

I suppose one could argue that these developments were good things which came out of war. But, to my mind, it's just making the best of a bad situation.

The Second World War killed more than 50 million people. Against that grim calculus it's awfully hard to make a case for the net benefits of armed conflict.

Emphasizing the positive outcomes of killing each other is a very slippery slope as pee wee and the neocons are quickly learning.

I miss Omni magazine .

Yea, PeeWee the mule skinner pissing himself with glee now that CAF can play cowboy's and Indian's with ,real, live ammo .
All happy that CS's are being wiped out show's the world that Canada is on the cutting edge of stupidity .

file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/charlie/My%20Documents/harper.jpg
The Mule skinner

G West

Substitute impetus. I've never seen impetuous used that way either.

In any event the assertion is not that war benefits humanity but that there may be benefits derived from some of the solutions to problems created by war.

You have a problem "making the best of a bad situation"?

Oddly enough that comes around to my original idea that one must adapt or perish. Maybe perish is not always the end result of failure to adapt but it's always a possibility.

Anybody care to speculate what the world would be like today if WWII hadn't happened.

PS I thought I was.

I am curious what kind of vehicles (if at all) the 'enviro experts' own; how big of a house (if at all); and number of offspring (if at all).

Sure David Suzuki taught me a lot and opened my eyes, but at the same time how many children did he father, how big are his homes (yes more than one-one on Quadra Island); and so on?

Then you should read Niall Ferguson's The Pity of War - 516 pp of text and notes exploring what the effects of 'not' joining in in the First World War would have been for Great Britain - and, by extension - Canada.

Any understanding of the world of today has to start with understanding WWI, in my view.

I have other suggestions when you're finished with that one.

freebear
What you're saying is, you wonder about the size of his own 'personal' footprint. I expect he does a lot of travelling by air too.

Ooops! That one doesn't work.
http://www.breadwithcircus.com/harper.jpg

One can hardly imagine a man looking more uncomfortable in his skin. Hat colour should match vest though - a fashion faux pas/

Actually the NASA space program has been much more beneficial to society,on the whole, than war ever could be .
The trickle down has been enormous .

ROTFLMAO as per usual G .
Yea, he has got to pay attention when Rona is talking to him about style .

I didn't know Harper was gay. Not surprized though.

Don't panic the sky isen't falling yet at least not from so called greenhouse gases. Check out this website friendsofscience.org. David Suzuki will not even debate these guys without getting into a fit of name calling. The earth has warmed slightly, maybe. The western Artic has warmed slightly but the eastern Artic and Greenland are cooling. The Antartic is cooling not warming. The so called hockey stick has been proven to be wrong. Yes we need to control pollution, but spending money fighting so called greenhouse gases is misdirected money. Read the above website, the whole site then comment.

willy
did you notice this, in the published books section in their references:
Various papers in the Special Publication "AAPG Studies in Geology #47" of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (2001)

I've read about Ball somewhere before, I wonder where it was?

.

G, I didn't mean the results of the war. I was referring to technological advances that were developed originally for military use, but later applied to non-war situations, like radar, GPS. I'm not saying with a diversion of military spending to non-military research the same or better results couldn't accrue.

I definitely don't consider nuclear energy as one of these war time developments that went on to serve mankind in better and more constructive ways. But that genie is out of the bottle now, and pretty soon everybody will have some nukes, thanks in great part to George "Pol Pot" Bush.

Nuclear energy seems fraught with dangers even in its "peacetime" applications in terms of waste disposal, accidents etc. Disarmnament and reduction of the massive stockpiles in the US and what used to be the USSR that was underway until the genius of diplomacy (Pol Pot Jr.) took over the helm is merely a start in the right direction. If the present chubby chickenhawk ever gets his majority, silos containing nuclear armed missiles will be farther north on the praries than North Dakota, I have little doubt.

Now I remember, he's one of the whiz kids at the Fraser Institute - NO Hidden agenda there - No wonder he gives Suzuki apoplexy.

Here's his cv from the Fraser Institute site:

Tim Ball
Climatologist, Author & Environmental Consultant,

Dr. Tim Ball, one of the first Canadians to hold a Ph.D. in climatology, wrote his doctoral thesis at the University of London (England) using the remarkable records of the Hudson's Bay Company to reconstruct climate change from 1714 - 1952. He has published numerous articles on climate change and its impact on the human condition. Dr. Ball has served on numerous committees at the federal, provincial, and municipal levels on climate, water resources, and environmental issues. He was a professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years. He has written a regular column on weather in the agricultural magazine. Country Guide, for 14 years. He is currently working as an environmental consultant and public speaker based in Victoria and has written, with Dr. Stuart Houston, 18th Century Naturalists on Hudson Bay, a book on the science and climate of the fur trade (McGill-Queens University Press, 2003).

In the words of the Martin Short character, Ed Grimly, 'Pretty impressive stuff, I must say!'[B]

With Pee Wee at our helm the days of Canada as "The Country that Could, but Wouldn't" will be just a fond memory like.....salmon runs in the Sacramento River or Atlantic Cod or walking across the Adams River on the backs of spawning Salmon or any fish at all in Kamloops Lake.

But hey, this is a world where they give the Nobel Peace Prize to Henry Kissinger!

rkewen
I have a whole box of old five-year diaries from a great uncle of mine - there's a lot of climate and temperature data in them too about 45 - 50 years. I think I'll bill myself as an archeological climatologist and see if I can become a Fraser Institute fellow too.

Think I have a chance?

Willy states:

If that is the case, why is the ice cap diminishing. If you pay me enough I can write some gobbledegood too!

I see a glacier from my kitchen window everyday. Every summer lately I wonder if it will be there at all by September-October. I've watched it shrink for two or three decades now, and if I look at old pictures from before my time the change is even more obvious and glaring. Please send me one of your experts to hike up there with me and explain what's going on.

Hey Gav (you're Gav for life now) you might have to take an indoctrination course to "correct" your politics for that Fraser InstiToot sinecure. Think of the perks tho, maestro, willy, cappy and the rest of the mensa crowd would start citing you regularly.

By the way, when they stick that air hose in your ear at the "course" it only hurts for awhile. Once you see the light, you feel so good any pains just vaporize.

Anybody who wants war, including draftdodger war leaders, should sit one night through in a foxhole, in -20C, the snow blowing horizontally in his face. No food for 2 days, dying of thirst yet wanting to pee, finally on his boots because of heavy artillery bombardment crashing all around, including the "chin-boom" of low trajectory field artillery. Now and then a submachinegun chatters, where patrols are testing the line.

He has one small piece of bread left and a pinch of sugar, saved for a couple of days. Not wanting to die without eating it, he cuts the bread into small cubes in his dixie top, and rolls them into the sugar, eating every crumb as if it was his last.

Starving people don't guzzle and jam food down their throats, like it is in the movies, but eat drop slowly to taste every molecule.

He can hear the screeching of tank tracks on the other side, getting ready for a dawn attack, sometimes even the screaming of their officers haranguing the troops to die for some idiot government and ideology, like his... Then shadows start coming out of the snow, some singing drunkenly, handgranades flying, the machinguns start mowing them down, dying and wounded screaming on both sides....

Lots of fun and glory. So somebody please tell me about the benefits of war? Especially those who've read about it in books and saw it in the movies.

Ed Deak.

Thanks Ed.

There aren't any.

Cheers

Beautifully stated Ed.So eloquent,So real .
Thanks

Thanks so much Ed,

You touched me my friend.

"War
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
War
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
War is something that I despise
For it means destruction of innocent lives
For it means tears in thousands of mothers' eyes
When their sons go out to fight to give their lives..."

Peace brother,

-Bear

Thanks Ed, the words of someone who has been there mean so much more than the empty bleatings of one whose combat experience consists of hiding from the Texas Air National Guard in Alabama, yet loves to strut in flightsuit and codpiece.

Some words from a better prez, who did just happen to be there once upon a time.

.
John F. Kennedy, Speech to UN General Assembly, Sept. 25, 1961

And then there is shrub jr. who thinks it is really cool that Canadian boys are dying in a foreign land for nothing .
In a manner of a few short weeks this entire fiasco will collapse under its own weight .
We are running short of every thing .

Manner should read matter.Sorry .

Fiat lux

If you are a survivor on the wining side there can be lots. If not war would have died out long ago as a dispute resolving mechanism. Plain and simple.

Gad, no wonder the enviro movement is depressed. Stop naval gazing and start fixing things.

California has legislated 1-million solar homes in 10 years (and are funding the program):
http://renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story;jsessionid=BD3D47FA5811BD8B3FB8E74059406956?id=46282

And yes, the LEDs are coming:
http://www.infolink.com.au/articles/97/0C046697.aspx

LED fixtures last 26 years and are almost unbreakable so no ongoing replacement required, give off very little heat (so no additional air conditioning required in buildings to cool off the heat from the fluorescents) and can have their color spectrum tuned. The most efficient street lights currently being used are the Halogen lamps.

Energy efficiency comparison points:
Incandescent bulbs ~13 lumens/watt
Compact fluorescent ~55 lumens/watt
Halogen lamps ~125 lumens/watt
High Pressure Sodium lamps ~140 lumens/watt

Efficiency is doubling every 9 months or so.

We should be able to cut our light-based electrical bill ultimately by >90% within a reasonable period. Developing countries might actually be able to afford lighting.

Toyota (one of those big evil corporations all you Lefties love to hate) has said that replacing a car’s lights with LEDs would be equivalent to getting an extra 20% mileage through reducing vehicle weight

The problem is that there is no winning side in wars. I studied military history for many years and found that the winning sides always self destruct by trying to hang on to their winnings, burn out and lose all.

All competitive sytems will self destruct. Just about every European country was once an empire, but look at them now.

We can witness this process as it develops every day with our "best friends and biggest trading partners" behaving like horses' asses, are bankrupt and survive on the gamblers of the money markets until they drop them and they'll go down hill.

How long the process of self destruction will go on, nobody knows, but it is on its way. Could be tomorrow, or 10 years from now.

With millions of others I worked on the pulling down of the USSR for 45 years, but nobody believed they'll fold in weeks and with a whimper.

Unfortunately, dying empires have the habit of destroying the lives of millions before they croak and I hope it won't happen when these assholes go down.

Ed Deak.

Fiat lux

A healthy bear easier to deal with than a wounded one. At least it has enough self esteem to make more or less rational decisions.

You are right of course but in the grand scheme of things time does count for something. The Greek and Roman empires, as well as several several Chinese Dynasties to name a few have all lasted for extensive periods of time by being the victors in numerous conflicts.

PLF said;

It always seems to sharply show up one of the significant difference between capitalistic neocons, and liberalists. It is the seriousness of which the left take on issues and the spirit of intention behind their actions. We come from a place of compassion and strength. N-Con's on the other hand, are primarily cerebral, as they have spent years deadening their other senses in order to achieve their objective$$$. Problem isn't that they are not smart enough, but that they think they are...and look at us now.

Thank you PLF for illustrating my point man...

Peace,

-Bear

Snert:
Your position seems to be that war is both beneficial and inevitable.

I'd like for you to point out some benefits of war that can't be gained by other means. Please be specific.

"Because the winners get stuff" is hardly a rationale.

The stupidest thing about war is that if the recources wasted on both sides would be distributed, everybody would benefit. There have been numerous statistics and articles on what benefits could have been gained, all over the world, from the wasted resources that went into WW2, killing 65 million and ruining whole continents.

On the other hand, the manufacture of armaments and the rebuilding of economies ruined by wars raises the GDP, which puts smile on the face of braindead economists and politicians.

Not to mention the crocodile tears shed over the "fallen in the defence of our freedom", who didn't have to fall to begin with.

The same goes for the reconstruction of the damage caused by climate change.

As long as somebody makes a profit from some crime wave, everything is OK.

Ed Deak.

Stump

The inevitability of war is a given. As long as there are divergent groups of people that are forced together by circumstance there will be friction.

"Because the winners get stuff" is the only rational. The stuff can be tangible or intangible but it's still stuff.

As far as benefits of war that can't be gained by other means, there are none. That has never been my contention. As necessity is the mother of invention and laziness the father things will get invented sooner or later. Maybe later or never.

Now as to my position on war being beneficial, if you are a survivor on the winning side the benefits can be tremendous. If you are not a survivor on either side then, for you at least, the benefit package is zero. That is all that has ever happened throughout history. The benefits may only be short term but that matters not at the time. Usually only hindsight allows for those value judgements.

People are not unlike animals in that they are only going to make challenges that they feel they can win. The challengees must then defend themselves. The challenger doesn't always win.

With animals the the stakes are either breeding privileges or territory. With humans I think "Lebensraum" pretty well covers it.

Previously you said war was beneficial for the impetus it provided to human creativity. Now it's 'winners get stuff'

Either you're changing your position or have found two proofs(both invalid) of war's benefits.

One war simply breeds another. Any temporary ownership of stuff is an illusory benefit when viewed over the long term.

I'll grant you some chutzpah to try and defend the positive sides for war. Good luck with that. Still waiting for some concrete examples.

Though it's tough, I hear (from Pee Wee, Gumboots, Lobbying O'Connor and Macho Man Hillier that we are winning in Afghanistan - WHERE'S MY STUFF?

It's a lot cheaper to build stuff, like houses, irrigation systems, bridges whatever and feed people than it is to bomb them. It is more satisfying at the end of the day as well.

Ooops, not as profitable for the suits though. Okay if we're gonna kill people what if we targeted the suits? How many starving "Islamo-Fascists" does it take to equal the demand on the planet's resources of just one high level (say Kenny-Boy Lay level) suit? Without their greed we could get on with the constructive stuff, the building and feeding.

Its the (rampant) consumption stupid!

If Toyota only wanted to sell me one car that would l;ast my driving lifetime, fine.

No they want to sell more cars each year!

If, for sake of arguement, each Toyota car reduced emissions by 10% would it make a difference if each year there were 20% more cars on the road?

In 2050, will there still be polar bears? Will we have to retire the 'toonie' because the species on the coin has become extinct?

Tell that to your kids or grandkids!

I call BS on this statement.

War is never between people, or countries, but rulers, ruling classes, governments, who then persuade their subjects to kill others and rob their possessions.

If war was a natural, human behavour, we would be legally killing our neighbours and rob stores to take their properties and goods.

So, if those actions are illegal within the country, how can they be legal outside ?

Of course, then comes the "free movement of capital" which is only another version of wealth creating war, using the perceived power of imaginary money, instead of arms.

Ed Deak.

G West

Please tell me what other extreme dispute resolving mechanism will take it's place.

Fiat lux

I notice you used the word "legally". In reality there is nothing more perverted than a 'legal' war.

Stump

These proofs (you choice of words) are not invalid. You are taking the short term view that says people get killed, property gets destroyed and the environment disrupted so war is bad. You seem to ignore the fact that out of the ashes a Phoenix can rise again and just maybe be be better off than it was before.

Gosh! Now I'm starting to sound like those rulers, ruling classes, governments, who then persuade their subjects to kill others and rob their possessions.
These subjects are the ones who blindly believe everything they are told, have no free will of their own and never challenge the status quo.

I'm in no way trying to justify war but in
overcoming adversity do we not become better people. At least that's what we are told.

War is not unlike an earthquake where tension builds up to an explosive release. Like earthquakes there are varying periods of time for these tensions to build and there are varying magnitudes war. As human beings we pride ourselves in being able to manage these tensions to a certain extent. We are not perfect. Hence war is inevitable.

We need some kind of effective, universally recognized and impartial mechanism like the world court in the Hague.

But, if you can't get the local bullies to subsume their pride and hubris and acknowledge that they too will be subject to its decisions there is definitely a problem. For Canadians, who already live with the U.S. administration's reluctance to abide by NAFTA rulings, which party is currently most responsible for this shouldn't be beyond even your powers of observation.

Whenever a nation desires to attain the status of international 'leadership' it is necessary for the leaders and opinion makers in that country to understand and accept what real leadership actually means.

You might want to be a little bit more careful about believing:

War is nothing like an earthquake.

You're right in that I should have qualified it as the trigger, flashpoint or whatever you wish to call it. In this respect the mechanisms that bring about the final catastrophe are at least metaphorically similar. The end results can actually look identical in some cases.

....believing - I'm sorry. I need practice in making my cynicism more obvious.

It's not practice you need.

Get off the internet, pull those little speakers out of your ears, give your ipod to someone who actually needs the soporific effects of SOMA and read a book or two.

Anyone trying to spin the positive outcomes of war is either too young to know better or too uneducated to not have learned better...either that, or he's a congenital liar and...a troll.

I vote Troll .

In case you didn't see this today G.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1161726631730&call_page=TS_EditorialOpinion&call_pageid=968256290204&call_pagepath=Editorial/Opinion&pubid=968163964505
Chantel Hebert

I liked this sentence:

Remember last January when Fortier was frothing at the mouth in anticipation of a chance to put his candidacy before the voters.

He's definitely singing a different tune now. I think I heard that Elizabeth May was thinking of running for the Ontario seat. Is that right?

If she polls better - or even nearly as well as pee wee and the conmen - it will be really interesting.

G West

So the discussion doesn't go the way you think it should and you resort to what...name calling. And you picked up this skill where.

Once again I will try to make it clear. I am not trying to justify war. If in examining the consequences I should happen to see a beneficial result that does not mean I advocate war to achieve that end.

If you fail to see that then I suspect you had best re-evaluate your reading material.

snert
Are you NOT trying to spin the positive outcomes of war?

Show me some evidence that you deserve to be treated like a moderately intelligent and well-read human being and you'd be surprised at the respect you'll get.

Continue to behave the way you have been and you'll be ignored.

The choice is yours.

G West

Huh?

So there are positive outcomes to war after all?

And no I am not trying to make them look any more positive.

The positive outcomes are spin - if you understood the English language I wouldn't have to explain this to you.

Consider yourself ignored.

G West

I know what you are trying to say but you are still not saying it. Anyhow ignorance is bliss. Enjoy!

snert

I thought you were leaving.

Now would be a good time.

Alcibiades

Thought like a true Sparthenian.

Yea, G our little Lizzy is indeed going to contest the London riding .
The stupido's polled less than 20%,last election and the Grit's polled near 70% .
The votes will split on the right not the left as Harpo is hoping and praying for .
The dippers barely have a heart beat in that riding .
So I predict we will win it for the Liberal's with around 56%,of the vote .

What did the greens get in that riding in January - I'm at work and don't have my files on this machine?

If they scored more than say 4-6 % then I'd guess there's a chance Elizabeth May could beat them in London for second place - It's a fairly wealthy and well-educated area and I don't think reform ever did well there either, did they?

Meaning that there probably aren't too many fundo voters in the area - unlike, say - Medicine Hat!

ROTFLMAO Alci. Too funny .

Let me check for 'ya .

Looks like 3.87 Alci .

Nope it was 5.49 to be precise .

If I were Layton I'd throw in with Elizabeth May and try to get as many votes for her as possible.

Bill it as the 'right' thing to do for the environment and make the big issue Harper's pathetic Clean Air Act. DO it for the good of the country - and, when the general election comes along, it would be a precedent for more cooperation between the NDP and the greens on a national basis. If it's worthy of talking about provincially (see Corky Evans) then why not nationally?

Might just work - third place would be a pretty big ego bruise for the wee fella.

I can imagine he'd be apoplectic. And even if May didn't win, look at the increase it would mean in her profile.

Message for Stump:

send me an email

if you have a moment and see this message.

Planet Earths' climate is changing rapidly since 1970, Why is this? Well a number of things such as; a 747 jet travelling for 30 minutes is equal to 500 cars travelling 24/7 for 2 years. Also high tech products such as; Cell phones, GPS, PCS', dead batteries, all kinds of different products that contaminate the land, water and air. What can we do about this; basically nothing until we die off and let the planet refurbish via mother nature.

Though I tend to agree with Pure we should not end on that note.

Maybe this here technology can pull the rabbit out of the hat.
Let's imagine that lots of decent folks ARE paying attention. Lets also imagine that it could make a difference if they voted (or otherwise made their opinion felt) only for candidates who claimed environmental priorities.

Even some of those who seem to be totally enamoured with "staying the course" have children and grandchildren. They also feel this terrible dread.
Everybody Knows
So let us move on:
Small tribes with barely adequate resources and many varied skills might be the best bet. Mobility is also favoured (not 747 - just mobility).
Good night

pure said

And how do all of the so called Enviro experts get around , you guessed it, by 747s
and lets not mention about most of the small prop planes that require LEADED gasoline in order to fly.

G West, rkewen hey read the website before you comment or don't bother commenting. There is very good documented information in there. I am mainly concerned that vast amounts of money will be spent on bad science. About Greenland the ice cap is getting thicker. Back in 1944 a flight of aircraft was forced down on the ice cap on their way to England. About five years ago one of these aircraft was recovered, from under 250 feet of ice and snow. If the cap is melting where did all this ice and snow come from? Now again read the website, its quite interesting.

Willy,
I read the material. I checked the authors' qualifications. Remember that glaciers 'move'. The idea that the wreckage was covered by 250' of 'new' snow is tendentious in itself. The combination of melt/freeze cycles and the movement of the glacier front can't be ignored.

I've also done research on Hudson's Bay Co. historical data - In many cases the weather observation data is very iffy...and can't be considered accurate from a scientific point of view - despite its value for other projects.

I found the site very unconvincing - sorry. No attempt to put you down.

Research on global warming that's paid for by Petroleum companies and promoted by the Fraser Institute has a rough road to hoe - that I will agree with you about.

While it is great everyone has such great comments here but instead of just preaching to the converted here, spend some time writing the people who make the decisions and encourage your friends to do so as well.

I hope everyone has written their letters to the feds. They have a much bigger surplus than predicted. More funding for buses and rapid transit such as the Evergreen Line would be a great use for these surpluses.

Rt. Hon. Stephan Harper
Prime Minister of Canada

;

;

;

;

;

;

;

;

;

;

;

;

;

cc:

Hon. Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities
Hon. Bill Graham, Liberal Party and Opposition Leader
Hon. Rona Ambrose, Minister of the Environment
Hon. David Emerson, for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics
Hon. Jack Layton, Leader, New Democratic Party
Hon. John Godfrey, Liberal Critic, Environment
Hon. David McGinty, Liberal Critic, Transport
Hon. Andrew Scott, Liberal Critic, Infrastructure and Communities
Hon. Stephane Dion, MP, Liberal Party leadership candidate
Hon. Michael Ignatieff, MP, Liberal Party leadership candidate
Hon. Peter Julian, NDP Critic, Transport
Hon. Nathan Cullen, NDP Critic, Environment
James Moore, M.P., Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam
Bob Rae, Liberal Party leadership candidate

BC MLA's can be found here:
http://www.leg.bc.ca/mla/3-1-1.htm

For starters it's a bit of a straw man argument, secondly, I'd bet most of those experts are at least aware of the issue (as opposed to many other air travellers) and thirdly, I know some people such as Julian Darley eschew air travel and still manage to travel extensively.

Just because I can't balance my chequebook, would you doubt me if I told you two plus two equals four?

G west you didn.t read it

willy.
I read enough of it to know what I think. Why would I continue when I’d reached that point. Have you ever looked at the microfiche from the HBC archives?

Furthermore, as Bob Dylan put it, 'You don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.'

Global warming is a done deal. Unfortunately.

The skeptics and the deniers are shuffling the chairs on the Titanic. I’ve been to Eastern Europe and I know what 75 years of ignoring the natural environment have done there.

I’ll never get over that metallic taste in the air whenever the wind blew from some quarters and the atmospheric pressure was right.

Anyone who thinks it is a done deal and uses that reasoning not to do anything they can to stop it is as or even more cupable as the deniers.

rac
I agree

Interesting to see history graduate John Bennett being quoted above to counter the many climate experts I cite - here is a list of just a few of the climate experts who might have a little difficulty with Mr. Bennett's 2002 Hamilton Spectator article:

http://tinyurl.com/ygdmzq

Mr Harris is far too modest and self-effacing if he thinks Bennett's piece is the only article that criticizes his rather pathetic support of the current New Canadian Government and its more or less complete capitulation with respect to Canada's once proud (though far from perfect) leadership role in addressing the accelerating challenges of climate change and global warming.

However, to spend any more time on Mr. Harris's evident desire to promote his own status as a sell out would waste the audience's time.

Time which, for busy Tyee readers, is already in short supply.

So, rather than paying any more attention to Mr. Harris's facile attempts at self-promotion in these pages, perhaps a quarter-hour or so devoted to reading an excellent essay from the Nov 16, 2006 Review article by Bill McKibben in the New York Review of Books would be a better choice.

You can find it here:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19596

It covers, and is an especially good introduction to those who are unfamiliar with the literature, the following books:

The Revenge of Gaia: Earth's Climate in Crisis and the Fate of Humanity
by James Lovelock

China Shifts Gears: Automakers, Oil, Pollution, and Development
by Kelly Sims Gallagher

Solar Revolution: The Economic Transformation of the Global Energy Industry
by Travis Bradford

WorldChanging:A User's Guide for the 21st Century
edited by Alex Steffen

Design Like You Give a Damn: Architectural Responses to Humanitarian Crises
edited by Architecture for Humanity

I think you'll find it time better spent than listening to Stephen Harper's acolyte Tom Harris.

No doubt it would eventually be posted on the sideboard here but Tyee readers always see themselves as more activist and discriminating than the editors; so why wait?

In some ways McKibben's final paragraph is the most important part of the whole essay. Given our current Prime Minister's inability to address anything but the several separate and disparate constituencies to which he has decided pandering is the most fruitful and logical route to majority power, it is quite delightful to find another suggestion about how we, as a nation, ought to be proceeding.

Here's how McKibben ends his essay; I hope it'll be inspiration enough for those of you who haven't read the whole thing to go back and follow the link.

I thought of substituting 'Canadian' where he'd used ‘American’ but I think the effect is nearly as good without the change.

The technology we need most badly is the technology of community—the knowledge about how to cooperate to get things done. Our sense of community is in disrepair at least in part because the prosperity that flowed from cheap fossil fuel has allowed us all to become extremely individualized, even hyperindividualized, in ways that, as we only now begin to understand, represent a truly Faustian bargain. We Americans haven't needed our neighbors for anything important, and hence neighborliness—local solidarity—has disappeared. Our problem now is that there is no way forward, at least if we're serious about preventing the worst ecological nightmares, that doesn't involve working together politically to make changes deep enough and rapid enough to matter. A carbon tax would be a very good place to start. (emphasis mine)

Some friends and I have been discussing the importance of re-vivifying the idea of active communities. It's indeed pleasant to see that the concept is spreading - as anarcho would put it - far and wide.

You know Harris you are not going to get a sympathetic audience here on Tyee where the average writer has way above average intelligence and an ability to think for themselves .
We all understand you are nothing more than a shill for Steveies government(?)and a hideous propagandist to boot .
So why not take your stupid opinion and pedal it somewhere else. Canada.com for instance .
They love holocasut deniers like you .

Really glad to see so many media stories of late clearly stating that climate change is really happening... This is definitely the first step toward positive change.

Thought that Tyee readers who live in the Victoria area would be interested to know that Jim Hoggan, president of one of Canada's leading PR firms, will be speaking at UVic about "the PR pollution clouding climate change." The talk is taking place Thursday November 9th from 7:30 - 9:00pm in the David Lam Auditorium (MacLaurin building, Rm A144) - admission is by donation.

sconnell
Thanks for the tip.

I've got it pencilled in in my daybook.

I do take some comfort in the apparent fact that Mr Harris, above, has been reduced to doing his own PR.

Yea, I am a fan of Mr. Hoggan's.
A man who uses the truth as a weapon most effectively .

.

willy, you're really not worth responding to and besides G. West pretty well already did it for me. But hey, pretty soon if a plane crashes on the ice cap in Greenland it won't get buried by the RAIN!

I don't suppose Tom Harris, or willy for that matter, wants to see this.

In the Guardian today,
Sir David King, commenting about the soon to be released Stern Report in Britain:
"All of [Stern's] detailed modelling out to the year 2100 is going to indicate first of all that if we don't take global action we are going to see a massive downturn in global economies." He added: "If no action is taken we will be faced with the kind of downturn that has not been seen since the great depression and the two world wars." Sir David called the review "the most detailed economic analysis that I think has yet been conducted".

The review will highlight the threat of sea level rise. Sir David said: "If you look at sea level rises alone and the impact that will have on global economies where cities are becoming inundated by flooding ... this will cause the displacement of ... hundreds of millions of people."

Sir David's comments mirror those of the foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett, on Tuesday. "This is not just an environmental problem," she said. "It is a defence problem. It is a problem for those who deal with economics and development, conflict prevention, agriculture, finance, housing, transport, innovation, trade and health." Sir Nicholas will argue that tackling the problem may not prove as economically painful as some experts predict. Investment in low-carbon technologies could stimulate the global economy. Sir David said: "[Stern's] analysis, I think, will also surprise many people in terms of the relatively small cost of action."

The International Energy Agency predicts that $15 trillion (£8 trillion) of investment in new energy sources will be required over the next 15 years. "The massive investment programme that's ahead of us is an opportunity for us to move towards a zero carbon energy system. The investment process is going to act quite possibly in the opposite direction to an economic downturn," Sir David said.

He told the Rapid Climate Change conference, organised by the Natural Environment Research Council in Birmingham, that achieving global political consensus would be extremely difficult. "In my view this is the biggest challenge our global political system has ever been faced with. We've never been faced with a decision where collective decision making is required by all major countries." The timescale too is unprecedented. "Actions being asked of the political system today are only going to play through into mid-century and beyond. So for the first time we are asking a global political system to make decisions around risks to their populations that are well outside the time period of any election process."

He drew parallels between scientific advice on global warming and advice from seismologists ahead of the Boxing Day tsunami. A month before the disaster a delegation warned governments around the Indian ocean about the extreme danger posed by tectonic activity under the sea. No government chose to act on the advice. "$30m as the cost to install some kind of early warning system presumably looked like a lot of money." But such a system could have saved 150,000 lives.

I see Jackie is gonna help Harpo craft some new legislaton with regards the enviornment .

Whether we see it or not the folks ("Jackie" et all) who come out in favour of paying attention and doing what we can at this point for the "Environment" will go on record.

Those who imagine (for their own comfort) that nothing has so far been proven would (in a perfect world) be held to task for the B.S. they have heard somewhere.

The problem is: the s--t hit the fan a while ago. This is not something we need to annalyse. We will be living with the consequences (or not) forever.

IF YOU WANT TO REALLY DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS, CONSIDER ENROLLING YOUR KIDS AT THIS NORTH VANCOUVER SUSTAINABLE EDUCATION WORKSHOP SERIES

Kids' (ages 8-14) sustainable Future Tech workshops offered at Capilano College, Jan-Mar 2007

Get young future leaders actively engaged in the battle
against Climate Change and Peak Oil.

Let your kids build renewable energy devices
with Silbury Connector courses at
Capilano College Continuing Education's
hands-on Future Tech workshops, suitable for ages 8-14.

These workshops will run every Tuesday
from January 30, 2007 to March 20, 2007
hours: 4:00pm-5:30 pm.

Presented by Rob Matthies thru the Silbury Connector

Course # YTHS21311

To register, call 604-984-4901
Cost : $155

See photos of previous workshops, held at Vancouver Museum ..

http://sustainablevancouver.blogspot.com

G West I see you haven't read the web sit I suggested, lots of documented information in there. I'll say it again is the billions of money being wisly spent. Remember when Brex and high tech stocks where the in thing that the masses where following. Money should be spent on pollution and the enviroment but chasing CO2 is a red herring. Read the website. Electric_bicyclist ever wonder where the electricty for your bike comes from. Hey people there is just getting too many people at the breakfast table.

Interesting that we are being accused of being a shrill for the government - note that the latter 60% of our news release on http://www.cnw.ca/en/releases/archive/October2006/19/c2383.html criticizes the government for their stance on various issues.

BTW, the ad hominem, content-less attacks merely tells me our group have some good points to make. Disagree with the science of what we are saying and we ahve something to debate; otherwise your comments have no significance. As a starting point, I encourage people to have a look at the 23 minute on-line video and see if you can find mistakes in what these expects are saying: http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3

Sincerely,

Tom Harris, B. Eng., M. Eng. (thermofluids)
Executive Director
Natural Resources Stewardship Project
P.O. Box 23013
Ottawa, Ontario K2A 4E2

e-mail:

Web: nrsp.com