- Ms Kaye is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Mary Carlisle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Prem Gill is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nancy Flight is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Justin Everett is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- John Westover is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nora Etches is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Edward Henderson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Bharadwaj Chandramouli is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Dean Chatterson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Marius Scurtescu is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Robert Parkes is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- James Murton is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Susan Doyle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Vincent Strgar is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Helen Spiegelman is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Subir Guin is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Kimball Finigan is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Joanne Manley is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- David Leach is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
Falling Short on Climate Change
Report tries to bridge the gap between promises and policy.
To avoid a warmer earth, cut emissions to 80 per cent of 1990 levels: Pembina report.
If the devil's in the details, we're still a hell of a long way from having a rigorous plan to fight global warming.
The provincial government unveiled legislation Tuesday that sets out its goals for cutting climate-changing emissions.
But if anyone expected that legislation to contain details of where and how the cuts will be made, they will have been disappointed.
The government gave statutory authority to the targets while announcing its long-awaited climate action team.
These are both significant moves. But they are only the first steps toward a detailed plan.
The need for such a plan is stressed in a recent report from the Pembina Institute. The report, titled Mind the Gap, looks at what's been done so far to cut emissions in B.C. and what can be done in the future.
The title of the report alludes to the gap between what the provincial government's done so far to cut emissions and what's needed to reach its targets.
Government miffed
The Pembina report irked the government, which immediately claimed that it's not being recognized for its plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
The report "doesn't give us credit for a number of things that we've announced and we've said we'll legislate in the near term," groused Graham Whitmarsh, the head of the government's Climate Action Secretariat.
Then Premier Gordon Campbell weighed in, telling the Vancouver Sun that he was "pretty disappointed" with the report.
"I think there is work we've already done that they haven't recognized in the report and that's a shame," Campbell said. "I thought they were much more diligent, and frankly far more professional than that."
While the report could identify concrete government plans for only 5 million tonnes of annual emissions cuts, Campbell's government claims it has set out cuts ranging between 24 and 33 million tonnes.
Now that's a gap.
Details lacking
Pembina senior analyst Matt Horne told The Tyee that the report's authors were trying to stay away from a "shouting match" with the government.
The report isn't intended to say "this should all have been decided by now," he said.
However, a number of the government's initiatives just aren't detailed enough to be counted, Horne said.
For example, Whitmarsh argued that Mind the Gap doesn't give the government credit for the seven to 10 million tonnes of annual cuts it intends to get from the Western Climate Initiative (WCI) cap-and-trade program.
Horne said the report acknowledges that the government has joined the WCI. And he said the cap-and-trade program may well turn out to reduce emissions by seven to 10 million tonnes.
"At the moment, though, the WCI process is at a very preliminary stage," he said. "Until there's some really clear constraints on how it's going to impact B.C. and B.C.'s large emitters, the devil really is in the details in terms of what that policy is going to look like."
While there are a number of "subjective judgments" around the government's announcements, Horne said, "I don't think any of those subjective judgments change our general message, which is that a number of the key pieces, even though they may be at early stages on the drawing board, aren't anywhere near developed enough to be given credit for."
In the throne speech and in Tuesday's legislation, the government pledged to cut B.C.'s emissions by 33 per cent below current levels by 2020.
That means cutting at least 36 million tonnes from the province's annual emissions, the Mind the Gap report calculates. (Other projections, based on faster economic and population growth, have put the figure at around 40 million tonnes a year.)
Charging to pollute
The Mind the Gap report identifies 39 million tonnes that can be cut "if the B.C. government and British Columbians are prepared to make real changes."
The cuts will require "real leadership from the B.C. government, through laws, regulations and policies that will establish economic signals to ensure that polluting our atmosphere with greenhouse gases is no longer free."
The government, the report says, "must enact policies to undertake all its announced strategies.
"Many initiatives have been announced but most of them lack details on implementation," the report says. These commitments need "effective follow through by government policy so that individuals and business can act.
"We need to know what will be done, how it will be done, how success will be measured and what will be done if initial steps do not succeed."
Meeting the targets will involve the whole economy and will "significantly transform our society," the report says.
"We will need to redesign our urban communities, our transportation systems, and the ways in which we produce and distribute the goods and services we all rely on."
The transition will have deep effects on communities, workers and families and these effects will need to be cushioned to ensure that some are not forced to carry an unfair share of the burden.
"There is also a need to ensure that workers and communities obtain a fair share of the benefits that will result from a properly managed and just transition."
Carbon taxes
The report contains 20 recommendations, including:
- A "strong emissions pricing mechanism, such as a carbon tax and/or cap-and-trade system."
- Regulations to "drive companies to make changes in advance of, or as a complement to" carbon taxes or cap and trade.
- Vehicle emission standards that are even more stringent than California standards.
- A "strong system of rebates and extra charges on all personal vehicles, based on their energy efficiency."
- Provincial and local government requirements that new housing developments minimize greenhouse gas impacts and offer alternatives to car travel.
- Carbon taxes on gasoline or pay-as-you-go car insurance, designed to encourage people to drive less.
- Energy efficiency and renewable energy performance standards for all new and existing homes and other buildings.
- Targeted price rebates and charges aimed at the construction and renovation of buildings
- A modest carbon tax on home and building energy bills, "levied in proportion to the emissions generated from heating, cooling and all other services in the building."
The report also warns that reaching the targets for 2020 is simply the first step. It notes that meeting the throne speech goal for 2020 will reduce B.C.'s annual emissions to 10 per cent below 1990 levels.
To avoid the worst effects of global warming, Canada needs to cut its emissions to 80 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050, the report states.
Tuesday's legislation sets a target for 2050 of at least 80 per cent below 2007 levels -- substantially short of the goal recommended by the Pembina Institute.
Related Tyee stories:
- Global Warming Demands Local Fixes
Half of greenhouse emissions are controlled at municipal level. - Denial as Projections Place BC Cities Under Water
Dyke plans, property values don't reflect sea rise predictions - Global Warming's Threat to BC: Seeking Solutions
Floods and droughts on the radar. Can we adapt?
![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
- The Gem of Canadian Science that Harper Killed
- Who Mowed Down the Premier?
- Canada's Economy, Deconstructed (by a 12 year-old)
- Death in Remand: a Tyee Inquiry
- Now Is the Time to Talk up Big Ideas
- Bill C-38: the Environmental Destruction Act
- 'A Gut Feeling'
- Sexism Tinges Criticism of Teachers' Job Action
- Bias in BC's Pesticide Decision? Follow the Bouncing Verbs
- Why Blackberry's Embrace of HTML5 Is Good Karma
- The Gem of Canadian Science that Harper Killed
- Sexism Tinges Criticism of Teachers' Job Action
- Now Is the Time to Talk up Big Ideas
- The Ethics of Addiction Studies
- Bill C-38: the Environmental Destruction Act
- Alberta Fills Pipes with Corrosive Denial
- Does BC Stand for Ban Clotheslines?
- BC biotech company seeks approval for GM apple
- Bias in BC's Pesticide Decision? Follow the Bouncing Verbs
- What's Behind BC's Doors?
- Sexism Tinges Criticism of Teachers' Job Action
- Should You Run from that Medical Test?
- 'The Dictator'
- Death in Remand: Stacked Deck
- Does BC Stand for Ban Clotheslines?
- 'Moonrise Kingdom'
- Tyee Builders Tally: Amazing!
- From Financial Advisor to Occupier
- 'Storage Wars'
- How Our Immune Systems Exaggerate Fear
45
Login or register to post comments
Lula
4 years ago
Reaching 2050
2050 they must be joking! by then it will be way too late.
Nowhere does the report mention changing our lifestyles.
How about stopping the implementation of some bad choices.
Stop the Deltaport expansion.
Ship emissions, train fuel emissions all add to Climate change. We need to save the Fraser River Estuary and the orcas, migratory birds, and fish and the Fraser watershed up to Hope from pollution that is detrimental to our health.
Stop Gateway. this road expansion will drive through agricultural land past schools and homes adding to climate change as well as endangering locals health.
Stop the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge - leading to more car pollution.
This we can do now!!! Get involved.
write to the Climate Action Team, your local paper, and the Premier.
Grumpy
4 years ago
Carbon tax?
Carbon taxes are a scam, dreamed up by those who are to weak to do anything. Anyone who preaches carbon tax is a scam artist.
The real problem is that we squander billions of dollars on next to useless 'green' projects which in reality are not green.
Take rapid transit. We have now spent $7.5 billion on SkyTrain and RAV, both gold-plated 'rail' transit systems, yet despite the money spent, we can not show a modal shift from car to transit. TransLink can't even give coherent ridership counts!
Other cities (over 100 now in the past 25 years) have built with much cheaper LRT and they can show the all important modal shift.
SkyTrain/RAV at over $90 million/km has show to be inferior in attracting the motorist from the car than LRT costing $5 million to $25 million/km. why do we build still more SkyTrain, no one else does?
For every km. of SkyTrain, we can built up to at least 10 times more light rail. So If we spend $2.4 billion for a 19km. RAV/SkyTrain Line, we could built up to 190 km. of LRT!
Which mode would reach more ridership? Which mode would offer better transit destinations!
Campbell 'green'? not until he builds LRT on Arbutus, he will be seen as a Bre-X sort of travelling salesman selling carbon tax snake-oil!
Fiat lux
4 years ago
Climate change has been and
Climate change has been and is being forced on Earth by the fraudulent theory of neoclassical market economics, and the deregulated money creation powers of the banks legalizing the criminal activities of the "wealth creating", multinational corporate mafia and the stock and money markets under their control.
No government, or major political party would dare to question the advice of their brainwashed pseudo priesthood of economists, exercising the same stranglehold on logic, as the priesthoods of all ages and the present.
Which means, the world will keep on getting "more competitive" in going downhill faster and faster into oblivion.
Ed Deak.
freebear
4 years ago
Just More Green Speak
Just more talk, mostly "preliminary"!
I guess Campbell is hankering for a Nobel Peace Prize now!
As Pembina Institute noted: "We will need to redesign our urban communities, our transportation systems, and the ways in which we produce and distribute the goods and services we all rely on."
Its how we live people that has to change!
Which zen moment, disaster, incentive, or disincentive will make you choose to change the way you live (lifestyle)?
Meanwhile spaceship Mothe Earth can't wait for 'our' dithering!
Jeffrey J.
4 years ago
Campbell Incapable of Social Planning
The Gordon Campbell government, cloned from the Bush/Harper economic model, has never been in the business of creating programs. Their job is to shrink government so it's small enough to drown in the toilet. Full stop. Which they have been diligently doing. Privatize, privatize, privatize. Suddenly, global warming has proven to be a threat bigger then even socialism itself. How can the neo-cons privatize this? They can't. But if you have zero experience in building anything, it's really hard to start learning when faced with a crisis. Have they really changed, and turned their back on the neo-con global template? I doubt it. When looking back on these times, people will sadly conclude that British Columbia failed in stepping up to the plate to do its part to protect our climate.
G West
4 years ago
Maybe Campbell hasn't seen this report
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
Maybe he should have a look.
Jeffrey J.
4 years ago
Labour Movement Excluded
One more thing. In the recent article below (by well known journalist Sean Holman), it is clear that the labour movement and unions have been summarily excluded from Mr. Campbell's green revolution. A very unfortunate, deliberate attempt to politicize a problem that is so much larger than investor finances. Ideology has remained obviously entrenched.
http://www.publiceyeonline.com/
mopled
4 years ago
Maybe Gordo read these instead
Abstract
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) gives the impression that its
Fourth Assessment Report (4AR) was thoroughly and diligently reviewed and the
statements contained in the report were endorsed by a very high percentage of
reviewers.
This analysis of the reviewers' comments for Working Group I (WG I) shows that
the reality is rather different and that there is surprisingly little explicit support for the key notion, that humans are very likely (90% to 95%) responsible for climate change.
http://mclean.ch/climate/IPCC_review_updated_analysis.pdf
The frequent assertion that ‘2500 scientists of the IPCC’ are known to support the following statement, arguably the most important of the whole 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (FAR):
“Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.”
- Of the 2500 reviewers, only 62 reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical Chapter 9, “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change” (Working Group I of the FAR);
- Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60% of them were rejected by IPCC bureaucrats;
- Of the 62 scientist reviewers of this chapter, the majority had serious vested interests. Only seven scientist reviewers without vested interests are known to have reviewed this chapter.
Of the seven truly independent Official IPCC Reviewers of Chapter 9, two were contacted by NRSP for the purposes of this media release - Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand and Dr. Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph, Canada. Concerning the “Greenhouse gas forcing …” statement above, Professor McKitrick explained “A categorical summary statement like this is not supported by the evidence in the IPCC Working Group I report. Evidence shown in the report suggests that other factors play a major role in climate change, and the specific effects expected from greenhouse gases have not been observed.” Dr. Gray labeled the Working Group I statement as “Typical IPCC doubletalk” asserting “The text of the IPCC report shows that this is decided by a guess from persons with a conflict of interest, not from a tested model.”
Their comments indicate that at most five independent scientist reviewers agree with this, likely the most important statement of the UN climate reports released this year.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/719
rangergord
4 years ago
Climate Change it's Consumers Fault!
Just like previous governments have done with environmental legislation, the Liberals will tax and fee the ordinary people of BC to death over the climate change panic. The price of oil will rise enough and technological change will provide solutions that will reduce emissions over time without carbon taxes. Cap and Trade schemes would rightly put more of the responsibility where it belongs on the large corporate emmitters. It would also cap GDP in the short term, so its out. Carbon taxes are in, and even food will soon be carbon taxed as if it was not expensive enough with all the embodied energy from its high food miles. Supposedly, income taxes will be reduced as carbon taxes are increased. This will only further benefit the wealthy. To make the carbon tax equitable would require that sales taxes be reduced before income taxes.
LeftSeater
4 years ago
Carbon credit EDITED FOR OFFENSIVE COMMENT
>>>A "strong emissions pricing mechanism, such as a carbon tax and/or cap-and-trade system."<<<
Just another tax gouge and a way of fleecing the gullible public.
I note the process has already started with the inclusion of a special Clean Energy Fund Levy on my Hydro Bill.
I have a couple of trees in my back yard -- who do I see about getting some "carbon credits" for those?
Hang onto your wallets --EDITED FOR OFFENSIVE COMMENT -- TYEE EDITOR your wallets are going to be harvested.
LeftSeater.
mopled
4 years ago
But look at the good accomplished
from:
The Big Secret: Climate Bills Result in No Meaningful Impact on Global Temperature
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/11/20/the-big-secret-climate-bills-result-in-no-meaningful-impact-on-global-temperature/
"Recall that EPA calculates that the climate bills will reduce future atmospheric CO2 concentrations by 23 to 25 ppm. That is about 60% of the reduction calculated by Wigley for his global Kyoto scenario. Since the temperature savings scales roughly with the CO2 concentration savings (especially at these small quantities), the climate bills “save” about 60% of 0.15ºC or just less than one tenth, that’s 0.1, degrees Celsius.
One tenth of one degree Celsius for an enormous economic hit—the EPA calculated that S.280 (Lieberman-McCain) would lower the U.S. GDP annually by 1.1% to 3.2% ($457 billion to $1,332 billion) by the year 2050. EPA’s analysis of the economic effects of the other bills has not been completed yet (see here for updates).
That’s a lot of lost capital to produce virtually no climate impact. No polar bears are saved, no droughts averted, no hurricanes tamed. Nada. Except, a lot less cash in the pocketbook.
When it comes down to it, these facts will make this a hard sell to the American populace at large."
References listed.
I take the above to mean that since no amount of money spent reducing "our carbon footprints" will amount to anything of any meaning in terms of temperature....why are we allowing ourselves to be suckered into this nonsense? What lemming-like will to self destruction is working here?
The brain
4 years ago
Wow!
Your link, Mopled, suggesting that the U.S. cannot do it alone in terms of fighting climate change is astounding! To think that a mere 300 million consumers being legislated to consume more smartly isn't going to be enough is... staggering! Wonderful projections... I guess since the U.S. can't do it all by themselves, they should do nothing. What a grand idea. (ho hum)
And the ascertion that close to all of the scientists working on the fourth amended report never read a specific chapter, is breathtaking. Surely, it must mean that the first three reports weren't read by most of the 2500 scientists working on these reports either, and didn't say the same thing. What a wonderful reason to deny global warming or mans impact one way or the other.
I've got a great idea! Lets just forget about it. Business as usual. Lets keep deforestating at record rates, keep producing more Co2 at record rates, and keep doing nothing about the current CH4 fluorocarbons that continue to leak out of old fridges. Cause the U.S. can't do it alone, you know. Never mind that most other nations in the world are willing to co-operate... except the U.S.... and Canada since Harper.
As it stands, forests continue to shrink worldwide. The largest ozone hole ever recorded was last winter over the artic. And the largest consumption of oil and gas on record was one and the same. Last year.
So lets continue to increase populations worldwide. Good for the economy. Demand is up, supply is down, lets make money!! While were at it, lets consume more energy per captita, not less... its where the money is. And since money is the God of choice in the americas, maybe we made a mistake getting rid of slavery back in the day. Apparently, there was good money in that too! C02, dioxins, PCB's, CFC's... we all know that industry has absolutely no impact on environments whatsoever.... lets go with business as usual! We'll all make a lot of money!!! Yummy $$$$. Mmmmmmm!!!! Money!!!! $o ta$ty! Money can buy what we all want... right?
Fiat lux
4 years ago
Global climate change is one
Global climate change is one of the transferred costs of the "GDP", "globalized wealth creation", "cheap goods" and "cost cutting", licenced by deregulated money creation.
It is that simple. Meanwhile politicians and economists are demanding more and faster "growth".
Ed Deak.
mopled
4 years ago
The brain is obviously not working
Sorry, but you just ranted on about fluorocarbons,deforestation and all that other stuff all of which is totally non-sequitor. The ozone hole has nothing to do with taxing energy on the basis of how much CO2 it produces.
The best and most equitable way to decrease population is to reduce poverty. If you are preventing production by limiting CO2, you are preventing people from improving their lives, in either the first or the third world.
As Nigel Lawson said:
"Warmer but richer is in fact healthier than colder but poorer.The more one examines the current global warming orthodoxy, the more it resembles a Da Vinci code of environmentalism. It is a great story and a phenomenal bestseller. It contains a grain of truth and a mountain of nonsense. And that nonsense could be very damaging indeed.
We appear to have entered a new age of unreason, which threatens to be as economically harmful as it is profoundly disquieting."
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22794095-20261,00.html
woody
4 years ago
Write with caution mopled
Write with caution mopled, when your addressing THE BRAIN, he has Tyee immunity.
I addressed him the other day. The Tyee moderator-terminator banished my kind words of wisdom off to cyberspace, where they float about aimlessly for ever and ever.
billy
4 years ago
Oil depletion won't help
Note to Rangergord: Sorry but it is wishful thinking that oil depletion will help climate change... have a read of Holmes-Dixon's "The Upside of Down". Peak oil will only lead to energy desperation, and increasingly dirty energy production. Significant carbon taxes may be the only way to move you and me to actually save some money by parking our gas guzzlers, turning off our air conditioners, and vacationing nearer to home. Sure the corporate emitters need to change, but so do you and me... and change big!
It will hurt, but not as much as 5 or 6 degree temperature changes.
Unfortunately, our political system is such that no political party will get elected by proposing the kind of changes which are necessary, unless the awareness of our likely future becomes overwhelming enough.
Luke Skywalker
4 years ago
Really...???
"Stop Gateway. this road expansion will drive through agricultural land past schools and homes adding to climate change as well as endangering locals health.
Stop the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge - leading to more car pollution."
Traffic sitting in gridlock, with future projections of increased traffic gridlock, will certainly increase vehicle emissions and is certainly not condusive to a reduction in greenhouse gasses.
Transit, engine performance efficiency and non-fossil fueled vehicles are also another positive step in the right direction.
snert
4 years ago
It appears...
...that oil depletion won't be happening for a while as this article in the Glob & Mire points out.
G West
4 years ago
Not Neil Reynolds
Any reference to that guy should be taken with several tonnes of salt.
snert
4 years ago
So the report.......
.....he is commenting on is all a pack of lies, interesting.
G West
4 years ago
For example, this:
Is complete and utter nonsense.
In Fiscal Year 2004, US military fuel consumption was 144 million barrels.
That's 144 m bbls snert - for the whole year.
If the US military starts using 312 m bbl/day the phantom reserves will be gone before the middle of the century.
Dream on.
Frank
4 years ago
The brain
I agree Lorne, the denialists simply don't want to do anything. Every suggestion is attacked as either a waste of time or too expensive.
And although in the last 2 decades we haven't done anything they still set their hair on fire if someone even whispers doing something.
I'm surprised they haven't appeared on this thread
http://thetyee.ca/News/2007/11/21/PacificGarbagePatch/
to claim that its not true either or at least claim its too expensive to clean up so we should leave it.
snert
4 years ago
And this casts...
...the report in disrepute, how.
"By the way, 144 million barrels makes 395 000 barrels per day, almost as much as daily energy consumption of Greece."
Try another side track.
Frank
4 years ago
Neil Reynolds
Well I for one am happy to hear America has so much abundant oil and is about to stop buying the disaster-for-the-environment oil from our tar sands.
So when will they actually start pumping all this environmentally friendly stuff?
Darn soon I hope.
I should open up a "pink slip" supply business for all those people about to be laid off in Alberta.
G West
4 years ago
It casts Reynolds in disrepute
Which is precisely what I wrote.
And which you, as per usual didn't actually take the trouble to read.
I didn't write a single word about the report which is, as any fair minded observer will attest, highly speculative.
Truman Green
4 years ago
As was wondering when G.West (Frank)
would write "denialist."
May I say, Brain, in all due respect, that your last post was chalk full of non sequitors, strawmen and begging the question--all boringly tricky logical fallacies.
If you want me to list them I will.
But, all the best, ol' girl.
Frank
4 years ago
Truman (ME2)
What would you prefer ME2/Truman? "Crusaders for truth and justice?
Truman Green
4 years ago
G.West-Alcibiades-Frank uses his
regular strawman fakeout, of course, pretending that those of us who don't believe that C02 causes global warming and that a few degrees here and there on the earth don't amount to a catastrophe, simply have no interest in improving the state of our atmosphere and removing real pollutants.
Which is not true. And G.West,Frank, Alcibiades, etc. knows this being fairly brilliant.
And this multi-headed personage is also very aware that we think that spending trillions on reducing the amount of C02 in the atmosphere is a ridiculous waste of funds that could be used in environmental upgrading that would make a real difference.
clubofrome
4 years ago
TG, JHC
Science is over as far as evolution is concerned, Truman writes! He must also be JHC himself! As a hobbyist, Truman has solved most of the worlds technological problems. (A statement that would normally have you calling for the men in white suits) But, I think I understand his claim! Intelligent design!? No just molecular biology at work. You see the theory states that irreducible complexity is in it self a sign of the hand of God! That's the proof, because they can't wrap their brain around the idea and therefore ID is the answer. That's the Proof?! Matter is neither created nor destroyed. So the same molecules are still lying around from biblical times. In fact we're breathing the same air as JHC himself. Well not all of us, but TG obviously is. That is more than the total amount of proof in existence that a sumpreme being ever started this magic thing called life. You'd think that there would be some tell tale sign of this grand design. Fingerprints? By products of some life factory? Lost civilization? Anything? Sadly no, and therefore it must exist. This one's right off the dumb guy scale, at least as dumb as 14 dumb guys.
Frank
4 years ago
Truman/mopled/ME2
That is certainly news to me. What exactly do you support doing?
Since we haven't spent trillions on reducing CO2 I'm curious as to why the environment isn't already cleaned up.
record
4 years ago
Over Consumption and Government Avoidance
Over consumption of resources is the problem and current governments by their very nature will not be able to make the changes necessary to fix that problem.
http://www.rabble.ca/columnists_full.shtml?x=60224
http://www.rabble.ca/columnists_full.shtml?x=64333
http://www.rabble.ca/columnists_full.shtml?x=62546
http://www.rabble.ca/columnists_full.shtml?x=61952
Stump
4 years ago
you're doing it wrong
Yes, I've found my switch from car driver to cyclist/public transit user whenever possible is really putting a dent in my pocketbook. No wait. It's the other way around. Addressing climate change could save us so much $$$ Truman you could buy a trip on the shuttle so you can test your Titan-friendly tinfoil hat in a vacuum.
Sheesh, get out of the way and let the people with a clue get on with the job of fixing a damn-near unfixable mess.
woody
4 years ago
a sign of the hand of God!
clubofrome said, You see the theory states that irreducible complexity is in it self a sign of the hand of God! That's the proof, because they can't wrap their brain around the idea and therefore ID is the answer. That's the Proof?! Matter is neither created nor destroyed. So the same molecules are still lying around from biblical times. In fact we're breathing the same air as JHC himself.
How could anybody argue against this type of logic. You'd have to be dumb, maybe, even wear a white coat.
clubofrome
4 years ago
Scared the Dickens out of me...
It is you woody, spirit of the future that I fear the most. Are you the voice of debates to come or just a shadow of another contradiction? Please show mercy with your use of wit and pass me by, for I am too old change...
weaver
4 years ago
Carbon credit Gypsies
Well it seems The Tyee aren't about to do anything about this post, despite my complaints.
Suggesting that gypsies are thieves is racist, and allowing it to remain as a post despite a complaint, when The Tyee editor has the power to remove racist comments, is a disgrace.
Stump
4 years ago
censorship
And that's why censorship never works. It's always a question of taste.
Better to let people demonstrate their prejudice than attempt to control speech.
snert
4 years ago
I know you didn't
You follow your usual tactic and attack the writer. Only after the fact do you point to an error. Nothing wrong with that but you see I posted the link because of the report not because I figured Reynolds was the greatest writer on the planet.
Do you consider yourself a "fair minded observer"?
G West
4 years ago
And I've now told you what I think
About both of them.
Two for the price of one.
rangergord
4 years ago
Read it, Billy
Just for the record, I have read The Upside of Down. Good book. The high price of oil related to global political instability and so called peak oil crisis is already stimulating technological innovation that will address the problem ultimately. High prices also put pressure on consumers to conserve. Something I have been doing for years, long before it became fashionable to do so. I have measured my carbon footprint and taken the one tonne challenge: I am way ahead of the curve. Carbon taxes are a bad idea unless they are accompanied by equivalent sales tax reductions. While consumers should reduce conspicuous consumption, ultimately the consumer system was not created by consumers (the public) but foisted upon us by the industrial/corporate sector. They should pay most of the resulting environmental costs. In addition taxes do not always provide sufficient economic stimulus to make large scale changes in the economy.
G West
4 years ago
One more thing
We've recently been told about the positive effects of selling lots of BC Coal and other commodities to China. In fact, I think several members of the Campbell cabinet are currently off to parts East to sell more of the stuff...
Perhaps they should have done a little research before they took off on a junket like that:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/world/asia/24evaders.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
The brain
4 years ago
woody/mopled/Truman
Write with caution mopled, when your addressing THE BRAIN, he has Tyee immunity.
I addressed him the other day. The Tyee moderator-terminator banished my kind words of wisdom off to cyberspace, where they float about aimlessly for ever and ever. - woody
LMAO! I must admit that when I was censored a while back, I didn't go on about it like I had a mortal wound that would never heal, lol. Kind words of wisdom... I believe it was a death wish you had in mind for me, so kind, lol. have a good day, woody. (chuckles)
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/11/23/wmo-emissions.html
And sorry, mopled, but I happen to think that if the entire world industrialized to those "higher" standards you blather on about, our environments would become uninhabitable for most life, never mind our own. Hate to break it to you, but not everyone owns 4 tv sets, two cars and a cigar boat for obvious reasons.
Human populations and rates of consumption are at the very heart of the degradation of earths life supporting environments. To think that it isn't, is to think like a fool.
And Truman, we've been over this before. A damaged ozone leads to more radiation coming to the surface of the Earth and hence, more global warming. An increase of greenhouse gases leads to the same thing. An increase in radiation penetrating Earth increases global warming. And life's inability to take CO2 out of the the atmosphere due to the fact that there is simply less life than there was before, is also a factor. (most specifically, plankton and trees)
The brain
4 years ago
Cont.
Right now, this planet is heating up as a result of increases to all four: damaged ozone, accumulated greenhouse gases, and less C02 collecting life. The thing to note here, is that our earths orbit is likely to continue to bring us nearer to the suns rays for close to another 2,000 years. In fact, if one wants to watch Gore's "inconvenient truth", one will see the eccentricity of earths orbit in his big graph he has spiking every 100,000 years. Its worth a second look and sets up the timeline scenerio to come.
And what does it all mean? It means this planet will continue to rise in temperatures, along with its human population rates and consumption of resources. And that is very bad thing for anyone with a functional brain that understands the implications.
The bottom line is this. We have dramatically altered our earths life sustaining environments already. Its undeniable. Only those who gain from greedy profit or enjoy engaging in a debate that only the ego itself is refusing to admit is lost, will deny man's negative changes to the environment. Because its already happened! Humanity has negatively impacted the enironments that substain life on this earth and the levels and degree's to which this is occuring is accelerating. Only fools at this point, will suggest otherwise.
Not getting personal... we just have to get into the habit of calling a spade a spade so we can move onto the solutions and those solutions are simple. Geographical population controls, changes in consumption habits and a shift to the sources of energy needed to drive big power is at the heart of it. And there isn't a corporation in the world that will embrace what is needed, although I must stress, it is needed... and that is regulation of emissions in all respects, right down to the packaging of the finished product itself. Quite simply, if its good for life, we should do it. If its bad for life, we shouldn't. And to make dumb assed comments just for the sake of an ego feed arguing otherwise, is to not know the difference between right and wrong... to have a deathwish. In certain circles, its what is known as... a fool.
Lorne Mccuaig
Revelstoke, BC
ME2
4 years ago
Orbit of Earth
Sez The Brain:
"The thing to note here, is that our earths orbit is likely to continue to bring us nearer to the suns rays for close to another 2,000 years."
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast03jul_1.htm
In view of the info in the site above, do you wish to amend your statement which followed the first?:
"And what does it all mean? It means this planet will continue to rise in temperatures, along with its human population rates and consumption of resources. And that is very bad thing for anyone with a functional brain that understands the implications."
The brain
4 years ago
You missed it, ME2
Absoltutely not. No need to amend anything. Your link provides the reason why we have a change in seasons, but the difference in seasons has very little to do with the formation and melt of glaciers and caps i.e. global warming/cooling trends. It would do you well to check out the Milankovich theory which for you specifically, would be a good place to start. It is there that you'll find the error of your own ways.
In fact, your link is so erroneous to the context of global warming that I find it a wonder to see your post listed as a "best" comment. (I suppose anyone can vote for themselves, lol)
Cheers and Regards just the same
LRM
RickW
4 years ago
Graham Whitmarsh: Climate Action Secretariat
Credit for promises? Only politicians figure you can take "promises" to the bank.
I kinda figure REAL leaders would simply DO something -- no fanfare, no trumpets -- until the deed is accomplished.