same old

Is this supposed to be news?
To the poor it has been obvious for a long time!
The trouble is that only the really poor are prepared to stage a revolution, the rest of us still have it a bit too comfy, thank you!
However if we elect Gordo one more time, I am sure he will manage to convince more of us that we are not the chosen ones, and that we will suffer more and more as time goes on.
All we see here is talk and more talk, each poster agreeing that we are going to hell in a handbasket, but not ready to figth where it counts.

Improve Public Transit and Cycling

So lets really improve public transit and cycling. This will help stop climate change and provide better transportation for everyone, especially those without much money.

Kind of a silly argument anyway. Fighting climate change will help the environment in other ways as well. The poor suffer the effects of pollution and environmental damage more than the rich so creating climate change is also regressive.

Time for the Rich to Show Leadership

Enough said.

Oh I think Canadians do 'plenty' of damage

Overall, it notes, Canadians have a disproportionate impact on the globe.

Canada's ecological footprint is the third largest in the world, it says, tied with that of Finland. Only the United States and the United Arab Emirates have larger footprints, the study says.

And, it says, "Canadians at every income level are contributing to global warming. Even low-income Canadians have a greater impact on the environment than most of the world's population."

However, it's those at the top that have by far the largest impact. The size of a household's footprint "grows systematically" as income rises, the study says.

That goes for every category of consumption except for food.

With Power comes Responsibility

Canada used to pride itself on exercising moderating influences in the global community. It also treated its own citizens very well. We could be even more effective now, when new issues are present which are amenable to creative solutions. Alas, under the born-again Harper regime, creativity and responsibility is out. Hard line extremism is in. Yet, most Canadians want to help. That's what's so cool about being Canadian. Inspite of our government being hijacked, we are still a very good group of people. Lets hope we can continue to make a difference. Great article.

Certainly

Increasing global economic colonialism won't change much without a significant change in moral responsibility. There is no sign of a revolution in that area to match the degradation that goes with consumerism and waste.

The system which was meant to serve Canadians well - and generally did so in a reasonably equitable way until the 1970s - has been turned into a monster which exacerbates inequality (both here and around the world), wastes resources and turns people into beasts who care about little more than themselves and their short term pleasure.

Certainly the poor of India and China have nothing positive to look forward to if the values and standards the West believes in are any indication.

Rural peasants simply move the location of their slavery from the land to urban slums and the wealthy 2 - 3 percent pretends they've achieved something positive and good.

They haven't and the majority of the world's citizens as well as the environment will continue to degrade and suffer: Both here and around the world.

Canada could help - sadly, its official line never lives up to the idealism of a few of its citizens. Given the ‘leadership’ and the lies they’re sold it is a wonder there’s any ideals left.

There are no "market based

There are no "market based solutions" because the markets are controlled by the mafia of oligopolies and monopolies.

Money is the licence to control energy, therefore the more money, the more control and the more chances for the misuse of that control.

How about the incredible damage caused by the compulsive hysteria of travel, especially of air travel, or the collectivization of economic activities forcing long distance commuting, and, most of all, the replacement of individual workers with huge inputs of other forms of energy, to remain "competitive"?

When will economists finally discover the cold hard fact that all forms of competition are increasing real costs and that economic competition is suicidal self destruction, because the constantly increasing demands for more and more energy, to remain competitive, must, ultimately, destroy the the competitors, as it already happened thousands of times in history?

Ed Deak.

Stump

Do you know the meaning of the word 'ludicrous'? Read what I wrote again and see that your math conclusion is actually ludicrous.

Still only 8 in 1,000 people in India own a passenger car. In China, it's about 20 but in Japan and the United States, it's at least 450 cars per 1,000 people.

Every day, about 17,000 private vehicles are being added to China's already congested roads, while Indian passenger vehicle sales are expected to rise by almost 50 percent over the next three years.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4595235a30.html

Despite the slowdown in sales growth, India still ranks joint second in BMI's Business Environment Ranking for the automotive industry in the Asia Pacific region. Vehicle ownership is low, creating potential for further sales growth, although with so many manufacturers already establishing production operations and the industry running at a high level of capacity utilisation, the opportunities for entering the market as a producer could be limited. In the meantime, India's production of CBUs is expected to rise by 63% over the forecast period, which means India's output growth is above average for the region and the market scores highly as a result.

Maruti Suzuki, which led the market in FY2006/07, posted growth of 18% over the first six moths of FY2007/08, largely thanks to heavy discounts and the launch of two new models – the Swift compact and the SX4 sedan. In this period, however, Maruti was pipped to the lead by US giant General Motors (GM), which more than doubled its Indian sales on the back of its two new Chevrolet compact models, the Spark and the Aveo U-VA. GM's sales for the six months to September 2007 rose by 140% y-o-y to 20,695 units.

http://www.businessmonitor.com/autos/india.html

Whatever math one applies that's still 4,863 new vehicles in India every day of the year.

Poor people don't buy Smart cars

Good practices are expensive.

This Richard S Courtney?

Richard S. Courtney was a Technical Editor for CoalTrans International (journal of the international coal trading industry) who lives in Epsom, Surrey (UK).

Source Watch even seems to indicate there's some doubt about his academic qualifications; he's listed as a “business” member of the ESEF.
He also had a previous incarnation in the 1990s as a Senior Material Scientist of the National Coal Board (also known as British Coal) and a Science and Technology spokesman of the British Association of Colliery Management.

Now why do you suppose he'd be a climate change skeptic?

another footprint

This article, in the Toronto Star:
http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/447808
which warns how near the tipping point we are, and that once reached, there will be no going back.

R-man

I didn't say build a Nano.

I was talking about an MDI car (or similar) that would run on compressed air. Follow the link I gave you above.

Most city drivers could run it on a nickel or less per day. With the yearly savings in fuel (and on the environment) people could easily afford one for $10,000 - $15,000.

It is my belief, R-Man, you like to argue more than you like to think about what others are saying. For you, it seems to be all about arguing for maintaining the status quo (or worse).

Noi kidding

Good to see the debate finally come around to the class war causes.

Links and forum to comment on this and other columns at:
http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/editorsblog

High Flyers and Soaring Inequality
By Robert Weissman June 24, 2008

Private and corporate jet sales are taking off, reflecting an increase in the extreme concentration of wealth in the United States and around the world.

Worldwide sales of private jets have more than doubled since 2003, to $19.4 billion in 2007. The number of jets sold increased 28 percent between 2006 and 2007 alone, and sales are up sharply in the first quarter of 2008. Corporate jet ownership has increased by about 70 percent since the early 1990s. Demand for private jets is so high that a used jet bought in 2006 can now be sold at a handsome profit.

But where luxury items like a fancy bottle of wine or a Picasso painting are simply a private extravagance, private jet use imposes real costs on everyone who isn't a high flyer -- and on the planet. The costs are documented in "High Flyers: How Private Jet Travel is Straining the System, Warming the Planet and Costing You Money," a new report issued today by the Institute of Policy Studies and Essential Action (an organization I direct). (See: )

Soaring private jet use reflects and is emblematic of skyrocketing wealth inequality, in the United States and globally. Private jet sales grew in parallel with commercial air travel until 1997. Then as wealth inequality began to ascend to stratospheric levels, so did private jet use.

But do try to keep it real.......

Carbon Cuts are just a fantasy
June 24, 2008

VANCOUVER -- I have bad news for Stéphane Dion. Out here in B.C., the people are revolting. Gordon Campbell's much-applauded carbon tax was pretty popular in February. But now, as people are being hammered by record gas prices, the enthusiasm has cooled. A new poll says a whopping 59 per cent of British Columbians now oppose the tax - and it hasn't even kicked in yet.

Beware the fickle voters. Everyone loves carbon taxes, until they have to pay them. But there's a much bigger and more serious reason for people to be skeptical of carbon taxes, cap-and-trade plans, green shifts, offset schemes and all the other policy proposals that have fuelled such mind-numbing debate. The reason is that they won't work. And you don't have to be a climate-change denier to see why.

http://thetyee.ca/News/2008/06/24/CanFootprint/

Proper link

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080624.COWENT24/TPStory/National/columnists

This is the Link to the Carbon Fantasy

Stump

http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=5978

Forget the New Zealand piece. Does this work for you? 1.4 + 1.4 = 2.8, ie. double and triple by 2015.

Whatever the stats show it's big increases in vehicles in Asia. Maybe we should blog on an Asian site, Stump, and tell them that their personal impact on the planet is at stake and the right thing to do is hang on to their donkeys or bike to work.

Renting and thermostats

That many (low-income) renters cannot control the heat in their units is a point worth expanding.

I'm one of the working poor, a renter and because of my low income must stay in this building.

Why? Because my employment is here, the vacancy rates in much of BC are between 0 and two percent - locally, it's 1.3 percent - and rents to new renters in this community have ballooned by 40 percent over the past two years.

My former landlady, who managed this building for 11 years, refused to turn off the building's furnace during the summer and kept the thermostat at 24C/75F all year round.

When asked why by irate tenants, she responded: "Because the little old lady on the first floor will be cold." Methinks it was the little old (land)lady whose comfort she was concernd about, since tenants on the top floor - old and young alike - complained about the heat and petitioned her to turn the darn thing off! (We get lovely cool nights here, but our units never got a chance to cool off.)

We cynically concluded that this practice was intentional, to force 3rd-floor tenants to move out so the rents could be jacked up to new residents.

Fortunately, we just got a new landlady and she's more considerate of tenants. Still, the building isn't designed with individual thermostat control.

You need to be rich to go green...

In many cases you need to *be* rich to go green. There are many things we could do to improve our 'green' footprint at home. Why don't we do them? Because we're not rich.

We can't afford to replace the windows in our house. We can't afford to put better insulation in the walls. We can't afford a hybrid car. We can't afford solar panels. We can't afford more efficient clothes and dish washers or a more efficient clothes dryer. We can't afford geothermal heat... The list goes on.

Going Green Keeps Money in your Pocket

I went green about ten years ago and it's paid off big. I still look for ways tp improve. Getting rid of the motor vehicle was a big step forward and has saved 5-10 thousand dollars anually, that's after tax dollars BTW. You can always rent a car if you really need one for your road trip. And I don't need a clothes dryer, I hang them up in a drying room. The clothes last longer because they don't tumble for hours on end. I hand wash dishes, no problem and it seems to save time. My hydro bill is always less than twenty dollars a month because I'm not glued to the telly or my computer.If anyone thinks they need all this electronic and travel hype in their lives, they are sadly mistaken.

I'm very worried about are little planet

And who could blame me. Our leaders are exploiting are concerns for the environment along with big business because thats what its adding up to. How is the tax to be effective if its those that got who do the harm as the rest of us only use energy to survive? Where is the benefit to the environment? Unfortunately there isn't if the stats are right. Its adding up to cash breaks for the rich and more cash for lucrative government contracts and advertising. What about the Oil Sands Project in Alberta and its negative impact on the environment and what are governments plans on off shore drilling now that is a BIG BLACK FOOT for Canada's part in ensuring further global pollution. And the haves don't want to get on the bus with the have nots in fact they don't do the bus. So who is the transportation system for? Well the haves who have billions of dollars of the publics money and getting more of it thanks to the carbon tax. Money talks and BC walks but the only guy walking is the guy who can't afford the bus. I say No to OFF SHORE DRILLING and further TAR SANDS is where the rich need to start paying the price. We need energy alternatives, yesterday.

Stump

I apologize, I did not reference the statistic the first time I wrote it, only did I later. I also apologize for being unable to make statements and give exact numbers for 2010 for they can obviously only be estimates.

Do you know the Wuling Spark?

The joint venture is also building new manufacturing and engine plants in Qingdao in the northeast China province of Shandong. Previously, it had shipped vehicles from the Liuzhou plant for assembly in Qingdao.

The new capacity at both locations is scheduled to be up and running in the second quarter of 2008. At that time, the joint venture will have a total capacity of 876,000 units annually, including 586,000 in Liuzhou and 290,000 in Qingdao, says GM.

No opinion, just interesting.

One More Stomp on the Environment

TILMA, signed by CAMPBELL AND KLEIN

Under TILMA any policies brought about by provincial or local governments directed at helping the environment or the health and well being of the communities can now be seen as veiled barriers to trade or investment leaving the public pursue wide open to corporate lawsuits. And if that is not insult to injury an unelected TILMA panel can slap a five million dollar fine, again, again, and again until government is forced to give up polices detrimental to public well being. Nobody else wants to touch it with a ten foot pool but then these premiers don't have oil and gas exploration happening in their provinces either or heavy investments such as both these premiers.

How about a realistic approach for a change??

I think the consensus on these Tyee threads is finally arriving at the recognition that in terms of reducing CO2 emissions, there is little that can be done to economically achieve this goal.

And so the Globe & Mail article by Margaret Wente offered above by Politico (yes, I know Wente et al's political objectives, but one's opponent is not always wrong) should be taken to heart by Warmists.

Although we appear ready to spend billions to reduce emissions with very little chance even for stabilisation, it should be obvious to anyone that far, far more would be accomplished if the same amount of money was spent on the development of non-polluting sources of energy.

We know that in the case of solar energy for example, efficiency becomes a question of scale, with the more units produced, the lower the unit cost. Relying upon "The Market" to achieve this is only wasting valuable time, for the Corporations want less, not more, competition.

This is clearly a case for government investment (not subsidy, thank you) and that just like the public investment in the oil sands - which neocon pundits maintained was throwing money away - our present lack of success is only a lack of capital for investment.

Neocons will oppose this, of course, and they will be firmly supported by the Oilcos which know that they will only continue to get richer as we pursue our present feckless course of illusory "action".

cars in Asia

R/man:

I guess I just don't really care if India and China want to make the same mistakes we've made. It sucks for us all to be sure, but we have no moral authority to chastise them when we are doing so little on an individual basis here in our own country. I believe shifting focus from our problems to theirs achieves nothing except to mask our unwillingness as individuals to make the significant changes necessary for real progress w/r/t climate change, pollution, congestion, and needless human suffering here at home.

It's a bit strange to me to hear people crying foul when the skinny guy at the next table goes back for a second bowl of rice at the all-you-can-eat buffet while we're chowing down on our third plate of abalone.

realisticman

Does this mean you were for the carbon tax but now that you've done the math and realized that taxing domestic consumption in a tiny market while shipping mass quantities of energy to other jurisdictions is hypocritical?

Or is your actual position that it is good for the planet if we tax our own energy consumption while selling as much as possible to others who don't?

Yes, Thanks mopled

I enjoyed Dyson's review when I read it last month.

I especially agreed with this:

The worldwide community of environmentalists—most of whom are not scientists—holds the moral high ground, and is guiding human societies toward a hopeful future. Environmentalism, as a religion of hope and respect for nature, is here to stay. This is a religion that we can all share, whether or not we believe that global warming is harmful.

Unfortunately, I'm not as sanguine about the prospects of technology and genetically modified carbon-eating trees as a solution to our C02 problems as he is.

Saving the whales

What it comes down to is that the Liberals want to treat the "carbon" problem the same was as they treat the homeless problem, the child poverty problem etc. They'll pretend to be doing something about things that continue to get worse.

This tax should not be justified on the basis of "at least its a step in the right direction" because its the same view of treating but not fixing that makes so many social problems so enduring. They never go away, we just get used to them. The Liberals see the climate going the same way. 2 cents isn't meant to treat anything except the demands of the enviros. Doing something would have meant real change but for every other ministry its business-as-usual.

Its all politics and the reaction from mainstream media was predictable but the reaction from enviros has been disappointing.

Frank

They do Frank. Although I haven't studied it enough to pronounce categorically.

The government will levy a 15-percent export tariff on non-alloy aluminum rods and poles and scrap the five percent import duty on electrolytic aluminum, the MOF announced on Thursday.

It said the move aimed to "further restrict exports of high energy-consuming and polluting resources products and encourage imports of raw materials".

This is the latest measure to rein in rapid growth in the high energy-consuming and polluting industries, including metals. The government has already announced rises in the resources taxes on lead, zinc, copper and tungsten ore by three to 16 times from Aug.1.

http://au.china-embassy.org/eng/xw/t342616.htm

Ummm! They have a very long way to go

Please click on the links to see the whole series on China and the environment:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2007/08/26/world/asia/choking_on_growth.html

Not a pretty picture

MLA ecological footprints

I wonder how big the footprints of our MLAs are. How many houses do they heat? How many offices do they keep? What modes of tranport, how far, and how often. Total KM in a jet, or a helecoptor, a limo etc.? Trips to California, to Hawaii, etc.? What types of food do they eat, and from where does it come? Do they recycle? Do they turn down the thermostat?

How many of them say: do as I say, not as I do? How many of them walk the talk?

Campbell (he's one of the tope 10%) caring about the environment - what a joke!

Lower Carbon Taxes for High-Rises

People living in Yaletown and Coal Harbour should be paying less carbon taxes because these types of high-rise structures contribute much less GHG emissions than sprawled low-rises and single storey houses. Clearly, whether they are rich or not these dwellings are the least enviro-damaging.

Those in the country and remote areas generate the most.

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=JUPDDM000132000001000010000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes

The results also show that low-density suburban development is more energy and GHG intensive (by a factor of 2.0–2.5) than high-density urban core development on a per capita basis.

Author(s): Condon, Patrick
Publication Date: January 2008

http://postcarboncities.net/node/2565

Clearly an across-the-board reduction in CO2 production will require a more carbon-efficient relationship between transportation and land use, and in the industry and infrastructure that support them. If 60 percent of new development were compact as opposed to conventional sprawl, the total aggregate reduction in national CO2 production over trend would be in the order of 10 percent.

In the latest issue of Sustainable Architecture & Building Magazine, Jimm Taggart, MRAIC writes of Vancouver, "...1.5 tonnes per person per annum for the densely populated downtown core, an six tonnes per person per annum for the single-family neighbourhoods...". Sam Sullivan's Eco-Density is favoured by the experts.

If one has carefully saved money all one's life and therefore become richer than others you shouldn't be punished for that.

The CCPA is just waving the usual hate-the-rich banner.

The rich are rich not because they're savers

In the main the rich are rich because the tax system and the phony market economy is horrendously tilted in their favour - that's all.

With the odd exception, the rich have gotten richer in the last 30 years and the poor have gotten poorer - as every statistic in both the US and Canada show.

George Carlin, who will be missed, put it as succinctly and accurately as anyone:

"The real owners are the big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians, they're an irrelevancy. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They've long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the statehouses, the city halls. They've got the judges in their back pockets. And they own all the big media companies, so that they control just about all of the news and information you hear. They've got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying -- lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want; they want more for themselves and less for everybody else,"

That's the simple, unvarnished, truth.

punishment

In all seriousness R/man, can you point to an example of rich people being 'punished' for their wealth in everyday life?

Going further, can you point to an individual for whom 'careful saving' is the basis of their wealth?

I'd like to get a sense of the cohort for whom I should be weeping bitter tears, over the injustices from which they suffer!

GWest & Sharing

IN THE MAIN. Yes, in the main. What about those that have saved? I know many who save scrupulously, live within their budgets and have paid down their mortgages religiously and would now be sitting on million dollar valued properties. Should they be punished?

Yes I can. After raising children they also work now in their retirement volunteering and helping others. Are they fools for having done so and now deserve punishment!?

Ah Well

The Campbell Tax and the pander payments, tied to reductions in tax rates, will ensure that lower income earners (retirees or families or single parents on minimum wage for example) won't receive any reduction in their taxes - because they don't pay any now.

But they will get hit, in ways that the pander payments won't offset, by the additional costs associated with the already large increases in costs of food, transportation, heating and the rest. The ratio of the 2.4c/ltr fungible Campbell Tax to the already 40%+ increase in the cost of gasoline in the last 6 months and attendant petrol-influenced products and services which are also spiraling in cost will certainly see to that.

Not only does the Campbell Tax NOT do anything whatever positive in terms of reducing C02 production, it manages, as all Campbell projects do, to be a further drain on the 'class' of people Campbell detests while ensuring that his friends will:
a) not have to change their lifestyles at all; they will keep flying and wasting and showing off, and
b) they will attempt to maintain and enhance their position as a societal elite; and
c) have a perfect excuse for demanding higher levels of already unconscionable profits at the expense of 'real' people who do real things and actually create something.

I certainly agree that effective environmental change has to hit far harder and more effectively at the sector which has created the insanity of the last 30 years. This Campbell Tax certainly doesn't do it, any more than any of the other market-based criminal systems already created to enhance the position of the 'owners' at the expense of the 'owned'.

What really surprises and disappoints me is how easily individuals such as Andrew Weaver have fallen for this nonsense and turned themselves into Campbell’s attack dogs.

SharingIsGood & GWest

Excuse me. I was quoting and should have directed my comment to GWest and 'Stump'.

Here's another one for GWest from the sadly departed George Carlin:

edited

We're going away. Pack your shit, folks. We're going away. And we won't leave much of a trace, either. Thank God for that. Maybe a little styrofoam. Maybe. A little styrofoam. The planet'll be here and we'll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet'll shake us off like a bad case of fleas. A surface nuisance.

You wanna know how the planet's doing? Ask those people at Pompeii, who are frozen into position from volcanic ash, how the planet's doing. You wanna know if the planet's all right, ask those people in Mexico City or Armenia or a hundred other places buried under thousands of tons of earthquake rubble, if they feel like a threat to the planet this week. Or how about those people in Kilauea, Hawaii, who built their homes right next to an active volcano, and then wonder why they have lava in the living room.

The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we're gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, 'cause that's what it does. It's a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed, and if it's true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new pardigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn't share our prejudice towards plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn't know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, "Why are we here?" Plastic...

Stump

Here's the nub;

The CCPA is lumping all high earners together irregardless of their personal behavior and demanding that this be the criterion for formulating policy. They're suggesting targeting one group as a collective based on their earnings and lessening the impact on the other simply because of what they earn.

They're saying that based on circumstantial evidence it's not what you do in your overall life that's important, it's what your profession pays you that should be the deciding factor.

The headache again...

I am getting more and more confused at this debate. Will someone please define 'rich' for me in the context of it?
I learned in grade school, that pastries and jokes can be rich, and people may be wealthy, but that is another issue altogether. All this talk about gains, and whether they are ill-gotten or not is BS. Jord does not care how much dough you have in the piggybank, or how it got there, but how hard you tread on her and her children. Sometimes dumb, immoral people get more money than they can handle, and then they may cause mayhem, but some 'rich' people are among the civilized, and they may show a deal of humility in their dealings with the non-renewables. We must, I think, how much of a headache this may be, find a way of viewing each case on its merits and build that into our approach. I know, I know, this will require real leadership, and oh, that headache again....

Dorothy

The problem of "who is carrying their fair share of the load" can be solved in large part through tax deductions for charitable donations,.

But that, as you say, depends upon leadership, and trusting that the Campbells of this world don't designate all their good buddies as "charities" - the few he hasn't already done so with, that is.:-)

What one does in one's individual life isn't important

To anyone outside of a small circle of friends.

Monetary success is meaningless when it comes to quality.

Jesus Christ had NO wallet and how many times did Frank Lloyd Wright and Arthur Erickson declare bankruptcy?

Thanks for the Carlin - I think the world's in a bigger mess than he does but in the end, whether we screw it up or it does us in is really not very significant.

Whether natural disasters or wars and selfishness have killed more people and ripped up more of the environment really doesn't matter.

In my view we have a small chance to stop behaving badly - for the first time in history (in my opinion) mankind finally has the ability to make a real difference for the whole world. We, finally, have the ability amd means to create and organize on a world-wide basis.

And what have we done with it? Simply become more selfish, murderous, greedy and wasteful.

I'd say we've done less than nothing - especially if you count the multi-player 'games'.

r-man: nice clip

I like the vision of Masdar: it looks like a great oasis for those who will be permitted access. I am curious as to what happens to the "great unwashed", the emotionally disabled and those with learning problems? Will they be permitted access and allowed to feel comfortable in such a city, or will it be by invitation only? Will people be expelled out of the walls if they don't measure up to the city leaders/planners expectations?

Many people on the Tyee have argued for planning/infrastructure development in Vancouver that meshes well with the kind of thinking behind the city in the NYC clip. That is why there is such strong opposition to twinning the Port Mann Bridge. After all, why create more of the same when one can build better.

There is so much more that one can do/have if one takes an integrated/holistic approach to living within the environment. We need leaders of vision. We need leaders who are willing to share the power and resources of the province with the citizenry by building useful/thoughtful infrastructure. Gordon Campbell has not been that kind of leader. Gordon Campbell gives our resources away as he builds polluting highways and subways that will not be used. Gordon Campbell talks environment while he sells off whole old-growth forests without adding any value to the timber. Gordon Campbell is replanting fewer trees though logging more. Gordon Campbell is a manipulator, he is not a leader.