The realities of climate change and global poverty are two sides of the same framework. They both have progenitors and foundations in an economic theory that fails to acknowledge that the amount of wealth on this planet (energy/natural resources) is finite. The Lomborgs of the world can cycle and eat veggies ‘till the cows come home, but the fact still remains, all human activity, through energy conversion, ultimately contributes to climate change, poverty, etc, etc. And the extent or degree of the resultant climate change or poverty or whatever measure of environmental destruction you want to use is entirely dependent upon the ease with which energy can be taken from sources that have little power to resist the expropriation. Arguments to the contrary by the Fraser Institute and right wing cheerleaders like Lomborg are diversionary.

Globalization, spun from the faulty logic of neocon economics, has allowed the rich and powerful to steal land, water, lumber, minerals, oil, coal, natural gas, etc. from the not so rich and powerful. Poverty is the only logical outcome.

A few years ago Paul Hawken and others wrote a refreshing book called NATURAL CAPITALISM. Its essential message was intriguing, because it yielded credit to arguments of all stripes. Free markets are more efficient than centralized planning, real costs must be factored into natural resource extraction and other industrial activities (instead of exporting them into the public sector or the natural environment), we need incentives to overcome the horrendous waste that characterizes our economy, and we can't afford to lose the tremendous human creativity that is at our fingertips but that is too often wasted through economic organization that forces intelligent and qualified people into low challenge, relatively brain-dead occupations. Perhaps our faltering efforts to meet the Kyoto targets can be stimulated by a more realistic approach to the steps that will need to be taken. NATURAL CAPITALISM is interesting because it fully acknowledges that the goal of profit is meaningless if the process of acquiring it renders a planet incapable of providing real value (in the form of life-supporting goods and services in a clean, healthful environment) in exchange for money. An environmental movement that fails to support efficient delivery of goods and services is as doomed to failure as an economic system that efficiently strips the planet of natural resources and replaces them with garbage. Though it's somewhat utopian, the fact that readers of every political and economic stripe might view it with suspicion and critical analysis makes NATURAL CAPITALISM an interesting and useful read. Perhaps there are some ideas there that our author would find useful.

Humans do not "own" the planet, by cutting down forests and burning more fossil fuels we are altering the chemical concentrations in the atmosphere, that are causing GLOBAL-WARMING. This week we had extreme-weather, in the form of excessive rainfall in the lower mainland. How many more extreme-weather events are required before elected-representatives take action on global-warming? We should spend more time "analysing ideas" than individuals, there are billions of humans on the planet, it is not possible to analyze each individual. This individual's fundamental premise is flawed because he is saying that economics(trade among human-apes) is more important than evolution/eco-systems/planetary chemical concentrations.

Unfortunately nothing will be done about global warming until it affects the rich negatively. Wait until the shores of Florida and California are under water, then you may get these humans of largess to pay attention to something other than themselves. Flooding, extreme weather will get to us all eventually. "I'm alright Jack, so who cares" is far to typical of our race. Business is also number one poluter, and they have no conscience either.

I am the type of person who is concerned about environmental issues without claiming to be an environmentalist, as I don't take that as being my primary focus. I am more of a liberal/social democrat politically, with an emphasis on labour and equal opportunity as my core concerns. If there are two things BC environmentalists need to do, if they are to avoid being disliked by the average voter, it is to be realistic about the urban environment and to stop opposing every highway and bridge project. Yes, the automobile is a polluter and yes, the world is running out of cheap oil. But I think every realistic person knows that the demand for personal transportation is insatiable (you only need to look at the developing and transitional economies of Russia, China and India to realize this) and that higher prices will lead to both conservation and innovation. 50 or 100 years from now the auto population of BC, of Canada, and of the world will be higher than it is today, increased scarcity and higher prices and alternate fuels notwithstanding. We will need improved highways, and wider highways. Those who say "No" to every highway project don't buy themselves a lot of credibility with the average person. As far as the urban environment is concerned, and this is more a Vancouver/Victoria issue than a BC issue, what do environmentalists want? Do they want increased densities, Yes or No? As far as I can tell, they are in favour or limiting population growth in the tasteless suburbs, but they do not have the courage or the integrity to tell people in Vancouver and Burnaby that they needs to be considerably higher densities in most areas. Why, for example, in popular precincts like Kitsilano and Fairview are there so many blocks zoned only for three story buildings (read wood frame) instead of eight or ten floors? What kind of rinky dink city are we trying to create here? Are environmentalists opposed to restrictive zoning practices, like floor space ratios, that do nothing to increase livability, but simply help to contrive scarcity and drive up prices? Are environmentalists in some instances in the pocket of the real estate lobby, happy to argue for anything that will keep Vancouver real estate as expensive as possible? This is the kind of tough question that BC environmentalists should be asking. Whether or not one is a organic, vegetarian pacifist, or someone who enjoys hunting and fishing, is the kind of immature, navel-gazing, silly-bugger debate we get instead. I guess it must be BC after all.

"The demand for personal transportation is insatiable." Budd you must be in advertising. Humans are quite capable of getting around on buses, trains, bikes or maybe even walking, should they want to. I suspect you will say I am completely mad but, you know what, it's our society that that has lost it. Overwhelmed by 24/7 commercial propaganda and a growing sense of 'without' distracting us, so many of us are hopping into the "car" and motoring off to the "gas" station or maybe the "mall" or even Wal-mart so that we may ease that hunger for "MORE". If that skill for selling an idea were put to a positive earth-use, I'll bet you and the rest of the car-lot guys could have people lined up ready to commit to stop burning fossil fuel. Hey, the buggy-whip guys laughed when Henry Ford showed up, but over here on the other side of history, we know who laughed last.

So, the Fraser Institute is worried about poverty? Is that an attempt at humor or what?

anarcho, you touched on a bitter irony most of us overlooked as we tried to make sense of this charlatan "environmentalist." What's snake oil going for down on Howe Street these days?

The "Conservation Voters" oppose the oil sands pipeline. Look, free money! Oh, no, its capitalism! They oppress us.

What a tasty piece of bait you troll Bud

Any society which doesn't consider the bicycle to be the primary source of transportation for all able-bodied people from 12 to at least their seventies is doomed. Doomed I say.

Well, I certainly don't need anymore extreme-weather events, thank you very much; spent from 8pm-6am bailing water from my kitchen Tues night as, to the dismay of my friend and I as we took brief breaks for tea, it crept steadily back.

And as I type this I'm watching from the corner of my eye as the creep-water begins to spread from behind the stove again tonight... the aqua vac is on hand this time; but it freaks my dog out and so begins this cycle of water creeping, dog sees me go for the vac and runs out the door, 5 minutes of sucking the water up, dog comes back in, water creeps again, etc. I can't really leave the premises until it looks like it may stop so thought I'd share that with you all... yes! let's take action on global warming...

Okay, I'll bite:

Well, should global warming shorten the snow season sufficiently, then I'll be able to ride my bike longer into fall and earlier in spring. And if things really heat up, maybe through the winter, too. Ta da, no more greenhouse gases from me. So then, pedal to the metal, folks.

Just caught the `nw interview. Basically the author has rated the worlds porblems and at the top of the list is HIV/AIDS. Down near the bottom is the environment. My own opinion of the worlds biggest problem is population growth. The birth rate in this world is 3 per second. The infant mortality rate is 1 every 3 seconds. Check it out at copenhagenconsensus. Is the environment the worlds biggest problem? I think not. Taking care of the billions of people already here is bigger. An emphasis on basic human rights is more important. Food, housing and medical care should be the priority - and that`s the bottom line.

Population growth is only part of the equation, bobthecabdriver. Of greater importance is the growth in Fantasy Land life styles, where the consumption of enormously disproportionate quantities of non-renewables is a measure of success.

The business pages of most North American dailies are full of articles touting the promise of great riches, for investors, as Asian countries start coming on-line. Perhaps, once China gets up to speed in its quest for the ‘good life’, the real relationship between population growth and the destruction of the environment (resources) will become obvious.

Ooops. The last sentence should read ... between population growth, destruction of the environment (resources) and global poverty will become obvious.

Reducing a singular problem into smaller ones for management purposes is common, but to attach priotized importance to one or a few at the utter expense of the related others, however creatively disconnected, is an uneviable position for decisions-makers, and will be all the more so when forced to consider the pooling grief of civilization as it increasingly ripples into a force of its own, soon inspite of everything - the inherent vanishing point of Western rationality looms.

My, we live in illuminating but no less beholding times.

bob said:

"Is the environment the worlds biggest problem? I think not. Taking care of the billions of people already here is bigger."

You can see the two problems as an either/or competition, or view them both as inextricably linked.

Only the latter view will have any real success in the long term... like a thousand years from now. In other words, we're doomed. Doomed I say.

seems to me that in the time it takes for enough humans to realise and admit that our overconsumption and overpopulation problems are making the world inhabitable for future generations of most species (including humans) and we will have reached the point of no return -maybe we have. the distractions of consumerism, terrorism, celebrity, recreation, etc. have been extremely effective. even if humans did realise and admit that their patterns of consumption and reproduction were destructive - i don't believe they would be likely to change them - like a drug adict who know they are killing themselves. perhaps we are doomed. better to keep trying though.

that should read unihabitable. and people like Patrick Moore and Lomborg provide excuses for people who don't want to admit it. What a dirty way to make money.

If someone says something disquieting, the easy way out is to call them a troll. It obviates the need for a substantive reply.

I see that no one has said anything about zoning and densities. Is that because BC's environmentalists have been trained not to annoy Vancouver homeowners, especially those on the Westside?

Bicycling to work is fine for those living within a few kilometres of their workplaces. What about those living 10 or 20 kilometres away? The Vancouver attitude is to tell them to fork out whatever it takes to buy a home closer to work. If that means you cannot have a family, that's good too, because don't you see, the world is already overpopulated!

A twenty kilometre bike ride should take about an hour. About the same as it takes to drive the same distance during rush hour. Please try again.

KWD; I guess you want all humans to disappear. That would certainly clear up all problems according to you. Energy is infinite by the way. This man is a true hero. You will have dificulty with his position. It's based on logic, not emotion.

This is the main problem with Bjorn: he is a humanist (and an average one at that) masquerading as an Environmentalist. Even worse he is a 70-80's humanist, the type that believes free trade and the IMF will solve all the third world’s problems. I'll give him credit though; just like David Frum he is making a decent living as a front man pedaling snake oil for the too obviously guilty or corrupt.

To me, what is wrong with Lomborg-complacency is its unstated anthropocentrism, which is treated as axiomatic. He is after all, a statistician, not an economist, a biologist and certainly not an ethicist. "Good" Environmentalism is necessarily bio-centric, and needs to be explicitly ethical. The people who can help counter Lomborg-ism are Herman Daly, Paul Hawken (as someone already mentioned), and Amory and Hunter Lovins. Also helpful, is the emerging religious-environmental movement, which understands clearly that the debate about protecting and saving our biosphere is not simply about what is materially best for those human beings alive today, (framed that way, Lomborg has to win the argument) but what makes most sense for life broadly (or "creation" if you are a theist), now AND into the future. This latter question requires an integration of scientific and social-scientific knowledge (and in my view good ecological economic thinking must be an important contributor to that integration) but ultimately, it is an ethical question.

Interesting piece. The link to to George Lakoff is good. But the thing that is crucially missing is the observation that Lomborg's cases have been carefully and systematically shredded by preeminently qualified people. This happened immediately after the book was published, and Lomborg's status fell rather harshly. Allowing him to creep back onto the charts is the mistake.

And Bud, "Are environmentalists in some instances in the pocket of the real estate lobby..." is trolling. Get off it.

Getting back to the original article, the gist was the need to "FRAME" the argument in ways which appeal to the wider public. Lomborg et al appear to be having some success in this. The question posed was how can the "environmentalists" formulate the message to resonate better with those who either don't (yet) see that a healthy environment is a necessary condition for social/economic welfare of humanity as a whole, or who don't feel the issue is "urgent" enough to merit attention.

I agree with Michael that the lense the enviro-skeptics use is antropocentric. I just read a book called HUMAN NATURE by an distinguished scientist David Trefil, that is in the same vein as Lomborg. He seems to have this idea that technology can fix everything, at least for privledged human beings. His pollyanna attitude ignores the plight of plants and animals on the verge of extinction by rationalizing that many species have gone extinct in the past and therefore more will in the future. He uses the word "we" all the time suggesting that "we" can bioengineer or "we" can build dykes to keep out the rising waters. Only the wealthiest of nations can aford these measures and wealth is something that can disappear in a day as it is completely artificially constructed. The only wealth "we" have is ecological integrity. From this all human interpretations of wealth stem. It is frustrating to read about the like of Lomborg, but he jst makes me want to fight his ilk harder.

What I want and what is happening are two different things Ron, but hey, good emotional diversion just the same. Infinite energy? For all intents and purposes we live in a closed system. For the 6 billion plus folks already here, technological change won’t happen quick enough to take advantage of your infinite energy supply. How’s that jar of imploding deuterium bubbles doing? Is it getting any warmer?

As Al Lehmann stated above, Natural Capitalism is an excellent book and sets the stage for procressive and profitable businesses to function responsibly. A MUST read for anybody interested in taking environmentalism to the next level.

Budd, There are many environmentalists who recognize the need for higher density. However, it's not exactly like the current residents of the West Side are leaping up and down shouting for it - they tend to actually oppose it for some odd reason. And since they often do wield the power in Vancouver, it's really not so surprising that the tend to win the fights against the density proposals that have been put forward. It's not like the environmentalists actually control these things. As for transportation, well, it is possible for modern cities to function well with the majority of residents not driving on a daily basis, as they do in several other parts of the world. And perhaps you're not aware of the years of studies showing that increasing freeway capacities is never anything but a short term solution to gridlock - think pressure gradients. And if the public transit systems in many North American cities hadn't been systematically and deliberately destroyed mid-century we probably all wouldn't "need" cars either as development would have been more come about in sync with transit. Which means that if density could be increased in all currently occupied nodes, transit might once again become an option. Of course, that's not going to happen unless current residents see the need and approve the changes, which brings us back to that little reframing problem.

Question for Bobthecabdriver: Son, how are we going to take care of the billions of people already swarming on the globe if we don't have an environment healthy enough to allow us to grow food? Already Agribizness has managed to spread so much pesticide, fungicide and chemical fertlizer to pollute even deep groundwater aquifers, some of what were once the most productive farmlands have become virtually useless because of destructive corporate policies and there are times I think the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa is being allowed to rage virtually unchecked is that there is all that fertile land over there, just waiting for the corporate food industry..if only they can get all those pesky subsistance farmers out of the way!!

Alternate fuel vehicles will not be readily available until the oil kings have wrung every possible penny out of the public but when the supply is gone, some other system will be put in place and we will still be driving to WalMart..which, by then, will probably be considered a world super-power. I don't ride a bike, I'm 66 and require a cane to balance me, if I got on a bike there wouldn't be enough bandaids. Road construction doesnt have to be today's glorified version of the cow path, roads could be elevated, could be built in tiers to handle traffic congestion, we don't need miles of land which could grow food covered in tarmac... and yes, people would screech at the added cost but , hey, if it's for the car, the car, the glorious car they'd choke, but swallow the pill...after all, who, as recently as thirty years ago, would have guessed gas would cost so much? Feeding the billions depends directly on Clean Land, Clean Water and Clean Air. Pretending otherwise is simply crass opportunism. This little guy is cute. As much as anything, that's why he's being supported and touted by the likes of the Fraser Institute. A group of whom it can well be said, they should be ashamed of themselves.

death of environmentalism...if Bjorn gets us to think about anything is should be "everything is connected"...this isn't about either/or...its about everything...time to get out of the 60's box...like the article says, we must frame a new positive vision for the future...and it includes non-tangibles...the following is from the Work Less Party which, I think, have put forward a set of "values" that may resonate beyond "parties" and "isms"...By working less we have: "more time to make new friends", "more time for reflection", "more time for Peace", "more time to grow your own", "more time to take a seat against global warming (bicycling)", "more time for yourself", "more time for family", "more time to respect life"...Bjorn Lomborg's wants to frame the world in an either/or, us/them, democrats/republicans, liberals/conservatives, browns/greens...all the values that keep us from getting together to discuss our future world where all life is respected. RESPECT

To: KWD, look up, is the sun still up there ? Is your heart still beating ?

Yo Ron:

Energy, unlike stupidity, isn't infinite. The sun will go out. All our hearts will stop one day. Sheesh. Do you think some God is going to wind the clock back up one day?

I think Jack Layton has done just that, both in his books and in the last election. He is still trying in the House of Commons. If they can ever get over their obsession with the definition of marriage perhaps our MP's can get on with some positive legislation.

Interesting article. The point about environmentalists re-thinking their approach is a valid one, proposing solutions instead of relentlessly attacking their chosen enemies. As a case in point, Tzeporah Berman is making a lot more progress with the forest industry in BC lately by talking with them than she did before by attacking them. Maybe it is time for a change in tactics.

I think most environmentalists do provide solutions. The problem is they can't afford to market those ideas as heavily as the car-makers et al who promote consumption. Also, unfortunately (from a marketing p.o.v.) the environmental message includes the part where you take responsibility for your actions and get up off your ass and do something about it.

Hey Ron, you sound like an environmentalist. Yes the sun is pumping 'infinite-free' energy down to us. However to put that energy to work for us, we need a healthy green environment to convert it to forms we (and the rest of life on earth uses).

mediating the effects of industrial civilization has become an industry in itself, namely environmentalism; while mediating the effects of environmentalism has spawned its own counter-industry, namely lobbying, along with its many clever disguises, one of which is Lomborg, another is Patrick Moore, and another is...

however, spinning environmentalism into a marketing hook is a dubious exercise at best ("now you, too, can have your cake and eat it too - so long as it's made with organic ingredients").

but then, i suppose some just want to be able to say that they did what they could, like some crazed doctor frantically operating under the spell of the Hippocratic oath; or would it be anti-Hippocratic oath? I don't know - you read it and decide.

anyway, from my vantage point, things are messy, getting messier, and that's no 'if', whereas, avoiding the eventual huge mess is actually a very 'big if.' so then, what do people really want to spend their time doing? mediating and spinning the mess or preparing for it's arrival? well, I suppose there would be career in the 'arrival-industry' - just look at the $ made in y2k scare ("get your e-quake survival gear, folks").

"oh, but the tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive..."

"folks, you were snowed." - Chief Dark Cloud (the crying Indian in the commercial as he looks over a big city landfill)

Hey Ron, just got back from filling my tank with some 220 million year old sunshine; and it only cost 83 cents a litre. Good deal eh? When I next look up at the sun (here on the wet coast it’s a rare occurrence) I’ll be reminded that, according to Ron, I may have to wait another 220 million years for the next tank full. And thanks for the vote of confidence; when it comes to exposing the neocon lie, my friends think I’m a heartless bastard.

JRG, don’t be too hard on Ron; he’s having fun pulling on your left wing. Nobody is that stupid.

As for the comment of the uselessness of reducing floor space, the reduction in floor space helps to conserve both green space (as there is more likely to be some left on the property) and energy (not having to continually heat/cool that area).

I'd just like to add that finding an alternative to driving yourself to and from work just one day a week represents a twenty percent drop in your commuting footprint. Now, add a little carpooling, some bike lanes, more frequent transit and all of a sudden there's more than enough roadway for years to come. My understanding is that transportation is a bit like electricity. It's usually cheaper to conserve rather than add capacity.

I meant to say that the above example shows that the problems are well within our grasp and behaving 'eco-logically' is purely a matter of being reasonably intelligent. Why then do reasonably intelligent people behave so stupidly (esp. in groups)?

Several years ago the city council of Vancouver decided to try an experiment - they blocked off the northbound curb lane of the Burrard Street Bridge to vehicles and restricted the curb lane to bicycles only. It was supposed to last for 3 or 4 months so they could estimate the increase/decrease in vehicle/bicycle traffic. Well after 3 weeks the experiment was stopped because of overwhelming complaints from motorists. Political reality told the concillors they would loss their jobs if the experiment continued - or so they decided. Democracy at work?

More like fatass commuters who can't envision any other way to GET to work... but are happy to work hard to stop progress and gutless politicians who won't make a tough decision and suck it up during the inevitable, but brief shit storm that'll follow.

Bobthecabdriver- that is SO pathetic, but doesn't surprise me at all. Anyone that dependent on their car needs to GET A LIFE FAST.

The foundation on which Bjorn Lomborg and his Copenhagen Consensus project is based exactly reflects our prevailing cultural paradigms:- reductionist (viewing the world's challenges as independent) - hierarchical (the expert decision makers get together to mandate a decision) - unable to cope with uncertainty (if there aren't accurate scientific models of something then ignore it) - no serious shortage of natural resources perceived (he notably doesn't include energy in his list of challenges) - free-market capitalism is immutable His process is completely rational. He is doing exactly what the ideal rational actor would be expected to do given our current system, and he is executing well. However this is precisely the problem.  The challenges facing humanity today demand something different.  They demand that we command our collective energy into processes of transformation that are:- hollistic - participatory - embracing of ethics and spirituality in addition to science - accepting of uncertainty - questioning of the assumptions underlying our economic system

Bjorn Lomborg, in response to questions at the presentation, said that he was not claiming to have The Solutions, and admitted that the Copenhagen Consensus was just an attempt to do the best that we can do in the short term. I feel that if he is motivated to do this, then in principle, that is fine.   There is a tremendous danger though in diverting energy away from the real transformation we need to make. The title of his book "Global Crisis, Global Solutions" is misleading in this regard.  And indeed his message, without any caveats, is being amplified by the powerful corporate interests as proof that not much needs to change.  Just a little optimization.

It is fine for someone to be rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, but do it quietly and don't get in the way of those trying to change course.

I should have described the Copenhagen Consensus. It was a conference held this summer during which economists prioritized of a list of global challenges based on cost-benefit analysis. Disease and malnutrition came out at the top as 'Very Good', and climate change was at the bottom as 'Bad'.

more details: http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Copenhagen_Consensus

I find it interestingly ironic that except for Frank, all of the previous posters have amply demonstrated the framing problem facing the environmental movement. Everyone is stuck on their own little hobbyhorse, feels that no one gets it, and takes every opportunity to rebroadcast it. They attack how Bjorn does it, proclaim what really needs to be done, decry the dangers of the current system, advocate transportation options and talk about density. We need to do as the author says and look beyond all that and figure out how to frame the environmental message in a unified way. But we'd prefer to squabble.

Well, HF, how would you frame it?

Even, Mr. Lomborg admits he doesn't have that answer. Frankly, if people don't care to understand that the things we do today will affect our children's lives tomorrow perhaps we should just wipe ourselves out and let some other species take a whack at it. The only species with a vested interest in our survival is us. There's no God who cares whether or not we can pull it off or not.

Which brings me to my other point.

Chris M:

Spirituality is fine and dandy, but it's not necessary for preserving the environment. Ethics, sure. But most of the wacky spirituality that accompanies the enviromental movement does more to harm the cause in the eyes of John and Jane Q. Public than it does to help IMO.

If you want to frame the environmental message in a way that works, you need to look at how we market far less rational endeavours successfully. Appealing to the mouth-breathers that don't get it yet is as simple as playing on their fears and insecurities. It's crass and manipulative, but as decades of soap and auto ads demonstrate, it works like gangbusters.

peace

the first comma in the first sentence is a typo. Sorry for not proofing my post.

I have been an activist for several years and am currently working with an enviro group on the coast. I think all of the posts make good points - about over population, urban planning, global warming etc. As Matt points out however, the fundamental issue is one of communication - encouraging the majority of people to care. I work with my "green" colleagues, drink free trade organic coffee with my buds on the weekend and go to my local organic shop for groceries. In this bubble, I think everyone sees the world they way I do. I deliberately read the Province and take my bike out of my neighborhood once in a while to get a glimpse of the reality of most British Columbians. It's these folks that we as environmentalist have to engage. I know from my work and volunteer experience that it is the same core group of people who support their local eviro groups, turn up for the marches and rallies and get out to vote on their beliefs. But sorry to say, we are small - a minority. As enviros, we have to stop "preaching to the converted" and relate to the majority of people out there who don't really see how buying clothes at Walmart or driving their child to school everyday has anything to do with poverty in Asia or their kid having asthma. How do we do this? Well the first step is realizing that we have to at all. The second step, I suggest, is to make feel people good about the environment for a change. Not good as in "don't worry, everything is fine" but good as in "Isn't it great we agree how important it is and won't we be proud, good stewards if we take steps to protect it - for our health and our children's health?" Let's not chastise people more than we have to -positive reinforcement can really work I'll argue !

It sounds to me like dp and stump don't like people asking hard questions. "Are environmentalists in some instances in the pocket of the real estate lobby ..."? I think it's a good question because I have never heard a clear demand from any of BC's well know environmental organizations for higher densities and an end to unduly restrictive building code practices such as Floor Space Ratios.

Whenever someone's best defence is to send out the silly-bugger term "trolling", you know you have struck a raw nerve. People who react that way would be best advised to join the babble forum and rabble.ca where they can express their sycophantic support for audra, the Moderator Who Must Be Obeyed!

stump suggests that a twenty kilometre bike ride should take about one hour, which is generally false. It may be true in good weather and on dedicated bike routes without too many hills, but as a general rule it's ridiculous. Does stump really expect people to commute to work by bicycle as a general rule from distances of more than about 5 kilometres? It's utterly incredible, unless there is going to be a serious network of dedicated bike routes, not just in Vancouver City, but outwards to Burnaby, North Vancouver and Richmond and beyond to Surrey, The Tri-Cities, etc. I think he's being more realistic when he points out that parking the car one day a week and taking public transit reduces fuel consumption by 20%, ... though that's a bit optimistic since it falsely assumes that all driving is to and from work, which is the kind of half baked thinking we always get treated to in Vancouver.

Transit can be pretty good at getting people to work, but is usually not so good at getting them to social and recreational engagements the rest of the week, unless they live in downtown and are going downtown. Even with the trip to work, transit has its limitations. It's pretty useless for people whose work location changes all the time (construction), or is in an undustrial area, or who need to take a large number of tools with them. It's really suited to white and pink collar workers, not factory workers or tradespeople. It's part of the snobbery aspect of Westside environmentalists that they don't recognize this and consider it "trolling" to mention it, ... mention reality that is, because it's not part of THEIR daily reality.

Budd:

I commuted by bike from Kits to Metrotown for a few years. Uphill the whole darn way pretty much. Was my best time of 36 min. and avg time around 40 min. just a figment of my imagination?

How is it that I can tow a kid and bike trailer from Fraser and Broadway up to Langara (again, mostly uphill), and then get back down to False Creek in under an hour?

Respectfully, you clearly don't know what the average person (I'm no Olympian by any means) is capable of w/r/t transporting themselves by bicycle.

RE: the 20% drop in fuel consumption. That's not what I said. I specifically referred to one's commuting footprint, not the total amount of driving a person would do. Poke holes in my arguments if you wish, but get the facts of what I said right before you do so OK?

Certainly transit has limitations. Mostly because it's underfunded and overcrowded, which puts off a lot of people. Further, I'm not suggesting that carpenters and plumbers etc should be biking to the job site. I'm not sure why you feel factory workers can't ride to work. I'll let my friend who does so know he's apparently violating some law of physics ;-).

Your arguments are so full of holes they look more like a colander than a reasoned assessment of the facts. Your reality is anything but. More like wishful thinking to support your rationalizations.

Oh, and btw, I'm a snobby Eastside environmentalist wannabe.

One pertinent fact w/r/t my old commute. Burrard and Broadway to Metrotown, 15km approx.

Another number to consider:

20 kilometer/hour = 12.4274238 mile/hour (mph)

12 mph average speed would be well within the reach of your average person, on an average bike, with an average amount of hills. With the appropriate type and amount of clothing, you'd probably barely break a sweat.

I'm sure you're tired of me by now but a quick google search turned up some interesting data concerning Canadian commuters.

Canadian Statistics Globe and Mail published these statistics on Nov 27, 2002. The stats were based on a variety of sources, but primarily from Statistics Canada.

12 million

Perhaps 20 km/hr might seem too much for some folks on their bike, but consider this: after a couple months, ANY biker would find this pace a cinch, and the general health of the populace would increase in proportion to the reduction in pollutants - a positive feedback loop engendering improvement for all. I love my bikes; amazing what mileage I get from a banana, some toast and jam, and a hot sweet java. Our 'need' for automobiles to get around is contrived and a function of tv ads continuously pummeling us with lies. ("Pontiac builds excitement!" Uh huh. Right. More like gridlock..) Get on your bikes people!

I do have a bike and I do ride it, but not to work. It's not safe or practical. In wet or other foul weather, even with waterproof gear, it would be a serious increment to the disamenity of having to work in the first place! On hot days in the summer it could be just as unbearable.

On a summer evening I will do a twenty kilometre ride, with some fair to medium uphill grades, in about two hours or so. But this is not an easy or routine ride, you're breathing hard and sweating for real. That's not consistent with a reliable means of getting to work and then being able to work without a shower, nap, meal, etc. Some employers provide showers, most don't. And working hard like that and then trying to do eight hours work is simply not on for most people.

stump, I just cannot believe that you and tommymoore seriously think you can fool people into believing that a ten or twenty kilometer bike ride is something light to moderate once you've gotten a couple of month's practice. You must be assuming that everyone else is completely credulous, and that they have no personal experience riding a bike.

For bike commuting to become a larger part of the picture you would need a major network of dedicated bike paths that separate bicylists from vehicles, and in the GVRD that would require at least tens if not hundreds of millions. If you did spend that kind of serious money, you would then find yourself being watched pretty damn carefully to see that there was some actual uptake on this investment, and there would be those who would want the bikepath users to pay tolls since they don't pay gas taxes. More bike paths are, in my opinion, an excellent idea, but be prepared to argue for serious spending if you want to see this done.

Tell me this stump. Did your G&M data include a percentage of people who walk or bike to work? Just wondered.

And if you want transit to pick up more of the load on trips to work, you'll need to argue for higher densities and probably for metropolitan amalgmation in order to get those densities, as well as provincial intervention to get the amalgamation and to rid of unduly restrictive building code features like floor space ratios and secondary suite limitations. I'll just say it one more time. I don't hear the Suzuki Foundation or the West Coast Wilderness Committee or any other major BC environmental organization making these arguments. What do hear them doing is denouncing plans for a second Port Mann bridge, which is just bloody silly on their part.

Because even if and when all this has done there will still be a major weekend and evening demand for auto travel. Why don't you drive out to the Trans Canada, just past the city boundary, between the Grandview on-ramp and Willingdon in Burnaby some weekday evening at ten o'clock. (I won't ask you to go too far from civilization, say to Coquitlam or Surrey, that would be too great a shock to your system. I don't want your son to miss his rides in the bike trailer while you're recuperating in the hospital from the shock of looking at all the trashy, ticky tack suburbs. BTW, is East Vancouver a suburb? I am told some of it was farmland into the 1950s.) Take a look at the traffic volume, it will be at or near capacity. Do you really think those people are travelling to and from work at that hour?

The truth is we need more of both transit and highways. The traditional Vancouver solution of scamming the motorist at the pump to pay only for transit, putting nothing into highways, is just too cyncial and too stupid. It's partly our British heritage of building highway infrastructure on the cheap, and part of a 1970s scam designed to accelerate the inflation in residential property prices by making it as hard as possible for people to move around. A good thing that Translink is now putting at least some of the gas tax into the road system.

Budd: We don't need more roads. We need cars that aren't ferrying one person to and fro (car-pooling). We need investment in transit that will make it a viable option for people who can choose to take their car or ride transit. We need road and auto pricing that accurately reflects the environmental damage of travelling in an inefficient fossil-fuel burning status symbol. I won't speak to your bug-bear of building densities as I lack the information or expertise to provide an informed comment. I will however, ask you. Are you saying tommymoore and I are lying? Seems that way. I provided you with a first-hand example of one's ability to travel by bike a certain distance in a certain time. TM backed me up on it. Yet you still say we're wrong? Proof to me that there's no arguing with a closed mind. I'm out

We definitely DO need more roads and bridges. We need that for industry and commerce, the so-called "Gateway", as well as for personal travel. Tolls, in my opinion, should definitely be part of that, and historically I think one of the worst decisions that WAC Bennett ever made was to remove the tolls from the Lower Mainland bridges in order to win the 1969 election against Tom Berger.

Are you and tommormoore lying? I am trying to be polite here, but since you press the issue, for all practical intents and purposes, yes, of course, you are deliberately attempting to mislead people. You are using exaggerated, unqualified claims that present an intentionally distorted picture of what is possible. It's sort of like the advertising material that auto manufacturers put out, with a professional driver going at high speeds along a winding road. Is it doable? Yes. But only with a professional driver and a closed roadway. Your claim that people can regularly bike to work 20 kilometres in one hour (through traffic? in the rain?) is an equally exaggerated claim, designed for the sole purpose of misleading the gullible.

I just want you to know that I am not falling for it, and I rather doubt very many others are that stupid either.

I notice you dodged the question of whether or not your Eastside environmental utopia is in fact a 1950s suburb carved out of arable farmland.

The 50's were a half-century ago Budd. Why try to use an example from the past when we're talking about the future? Presumably, some of us have learned a thing or two since then.

Your knowledge (lack thereof rather) of what's possible on a bike is based on assumptions. The facts are that in traffic a bike is as fast, if not faster than a car. My claims are neither exaggerated nor intentionally distorted. Maybe you can't do it, but you're in the minority if that's the case.

We don't need more roads. That (and I won't try to be polite) is utter bullshit. How much pavement will be enough to sate your addiction? On the one hand you decry the loss of farmland, and on the other you want to pave, pave, pave.

It's that kind of inability to say "and then what" that got us in this mess in the first place.

With all due respect, get a clue. The way our society is living is unsustainable. We can start to change now and endure a little pain, or wait for circumstances to force us to make major changes quickly and have it cost us far more in terms of money and quality of life.

Maybe you don't care what kind of world we leave behind? If so, you should be ashamed of yourself.

I'd like to get back to the framing issue. If we want to find a way to combat the Lomborgian framing of environmentalism, we should as Frank and HF re-iterated, be searching for a frame that trumps theirs. If Lomborg is about to become a Fraser Institute poster child for world poverty by painting climate change issues as standing in the way of this, perhaps we should frame the environmental issue in the kind of tokens those who we are not reaching understand best - namely monetary ones. Fraser Institute green stuff... money.

Lomborg et al are defining the issue economically, so define it back by seizing control of the economics from them but with a new vision. I'm not talking about a co-operative business approach but about the sheer truth that in the end treating the natural world as the enemy is a losing proposition both environmentally and economically.

Most would agree that money is just a yardstick, not inherently bad in itself but how it is used and who controls it is central to invoking real change. So, if the issue was framed in terms of how much, monetarily, bad environmental decisions cost us, how many times we will pay over and over again for recklessly made decisions and how foolish it is to waste money having to correct environmental damage when the damage could have been avoided in the first place.... then we can easily counterattack their framing with our own, namely that money is being needlessly wasted when it could be used to address urgent social issues like... world poverty.

In other words, Lomborg's framing is cornering environmental issues into a defensive position... assume the offensive position, and make them answer for not only our environmental losses but our monetary ones as well.

Well said Lynn. The problem seems to be however, that when we do offer solutions, all we get in response are rationalizations as to why our solutions can't work, despite the fact that we are offering proofs that they can and in some cases, must, if we are to survive and thrive.

Take cycling. I know I'm a bit of a one track ranter on the subject, but it's one area of eco-friendliness that I have some experience with. As we've already seen in this thread, you can offer personal experience, statistics, and even get corroboration from another person, yet the Budd Campbells of the world will maintain that our solution is impossible and brand us as manipulative liars to boot.

Because that opinion allows others to continue to tread heavily on the earth for the sake of convenience and comfort, guess which p.o.v. they believe?

Clearly we can never give up, be it in generating effective, accurate agit-prop to counter the false messages spun out by the profit-at-all-costs brigade, or living our lives according to our principles. But, it's easy to see how people get frustrated and decide to just swim with the tide. I've had so many arguments with friends who are perfectly capable of throwing away their car keys and living a better life because of it, that to all extents and purposes I've pretty much given up, on the basis that you can lead a horse to water, etc.

I think one of the areas that needs to be addressed is the misconception that environmentalism somehow equals some kind of Red Menace... that the ecologically-minded are lying in wait ready to strip us of our freedoms and our right to earn a living. Some actress once said, "I've been rich and I've been poor, rich is better." Or words to that effect. From personal experience I would have to agree, although I'd have to change 'rich' to 'not-poor'. If we can find a way to effectively convey the message that stewardship needn't mean sacrifice... and in fact may mean improvement in one's standard of living then perhaps we've found a key to unlocking a few minds.

A long-winded way to agree with you I know, but I never met a soapbox I didn't like. ;-)

Thanks for reading.

Oh yeah, and what's the deal with the Campbells?

We've Mayor Larry Flip-Flop, Gordo the Mai-Tai Maniac of Maui, and now Budd the Dud.

Somebody from that clan needs to talk to these jokers. They think they ken much, but they nae ken much at all it seems.

Ha Ha

people in this culture are under the illusion that the environment can be managed to everyone's satisfaction; but it can't and nor should it. People are the only things that need managing, not fish, trees, water, animals... Personal and economic liberties are destroying their home. Chew on that choice.

Rest assured I am not making another post here in reply to stump, though I would once again ask him to just be honest in his paens to cycling. Can it help, ... sure. Can it help in all cases, including those who have to travel longer distances, ... hardly.

Last nite I hear Lomborg being interviewed by Anna Maria Tremonte of CBC Radio. Apparently his "Copenhagen Consensus" item was some kind of economic cost benefit modelling of various world aid policies with an assumed budget of $50 billion. Climate change came out low on that ranking because its impacts were so little when compared to, say, combatting HIV/AIDS.

It was clear that Lomborg is not an climate change denier. On the contrary, he says that even with full implementation of Kyoto there will still be global warming, and that a hundred years from now the difference, as between Kyoto being implemented or not, would be just a few years in terms of the rate at which coastal lowlands were innundated. But with other efforts, such as HIV/AIDS prevention or malaria interventions, the lives and human capital saved, especially in the developing world, would mean an immense difference in the living standards of those countries 50 or 100 years out.

If BC and Pacific Northwest environmentalists believe that saving millions of lives in Africa and Asia is less important than making a small, almost immaterial contribution to GHG reduction, for the same dollars expended, that's a moral judgement they ought to explain.

It's all in how you frame the issue, isn't it. but last i looked, the bearers of the canadian constitution aren't responsible for anyone or anything outside its borders, and the UN is a voluntary organization that has pseudo clout, usually moral, but it isn't a world government with authorative powers to force any nation to do anything. people can speculate till the cats come home about this vs that scenario, but in reality things are getting messier and the reality is to prepare for it or ignore, everything else is hypothetical and an excercise in frustration - we didn't create civilization's original dream, we've only inherited its transformation into a nightmare

Kudos to you Budd. If anything you've demonstrated how to keep the 'frame' wrapped up in whatever truth you hold dear. Simply by ignoring some of what I've said, and misrepresenting the rest you've managed to completely avoid debating the merits of the solution I propose.

It's an object lesson for us all. Especially the part where you claim it's an either/or issue w/r/t choosing battling climate change or saving lives. Is there a reason we can't do both?

Good point, Stump, why can't we do both? If the earth become a hostile place on which to live all issues from Aids to poverty become irrelevant ones, anyway. Although Lomborg may not be denying global warming, he is certainly downplaying it and trivializing it. The abuse of our environment by economic systems that exploit both people and resources cause world poverty. Round and round we go, endlessly trying to correct what we are continually creating. We have to stop the merry-go-round first.

The argument about how difficult or easy a 20 km cycle ride is, seems to be unwinnable. How about looking at the people who drive their kids 3 blocks to school (I know of some), or who drive 8 blocks to work, or 2 blocks to the corner store. It seems our auto addiction can be compared to smoking - an addictive illness. Remember there was a huge amount of fearmongering that restaurants, bars etc would go bust if smoking was banned in public places - none of that happened. In fact we don't hear any complaints any more. Similar fearmongering is happening now about asphalt - if we don't twin the Port Mann brige (for eg) there will be gridlock. I don't believe it. Building more highways WILL INCREASE GRIDLOCK! It has been proven over and over again. Provide alternatives and they will come! But, yes, we do need to "frame" it positively. What would you prefer - cycling to the store, smelling the flowers and meeting your neighbours, or sitting in traffic, dealing with road rage and fighting for parking spaces? Pretty easy choice for me!

"It's very difficult to get politicians to collaborate, not only across the globe but also over sustained lengths of time," Bob Spicer from the Earth Sciences Department at the Open University, told BBC News.

"The people who can hold politicians to account are the public; and with this project we are bringing cutting-edge science to the stakeholders, the public."

www.climateprediction.net

Stump writes: ".. you claim it's an either/or issue w/r/t choosing battling climate change or saving lives. Is there a reason we can't do both?"

lynn writes: "Good point, Stump, why can't we do both?"

Probably we can do both, ... if the budget is large enough. I have never read Lomborg's stuff, I just heard him on the CBC. Perhaps stump and lynn and Matt Price, the author of this article, have read more of what Lomborg has said. Certainly the fact that his speech in Vancouver was hosted by the Fraser Inst is grounds enough for suspicion, no question about it. However, what Lomborg told Tremonte of the CBC was essentially sensible, that with limited budgets you cannot do everything, and you need some cost/benefit criteria in order to set priorities.

Another point Lomborg was stating, and I don't know how accurate this is, but I suspect he would get little argument from the self-proclaimed environmentalists here, is that even if Kyoto were fully implemented (i.e. even with the US joining the accord), there will still be significant global warming over the next hundred years, and sea levels will rise sufficiently to innundate coastal lowlands in poor countries like Bengladesh. I gather the thinking is that the first world can afford to dyke itself around most of the problem, and that we will still have beautiful downtown Richmond.

Budd, on one of the other threads someone posted a great piece by Michael Crichton that equates environmentalism with religion, with seeing the good old days as better than they really were, romantizing a natural past that never really existed, and a sort of self-absorbed savior approach to saving the world from doom. I think all of these views hold some weight, if we are honest with ourselves, that there is an "image" of environmentalism that is sometimes worn like a pretentious Calvin Klein label.

However, for argument's sake, leaving the most common and most worthy defense of the natural world - the awe-inspiring wonder of nature, that we are all a part of, ( both in it's beauty and it's ruthlessness) aside for the moment, it is clear that we will have no options, no choices, and no issues to prioritize if we have no earth on which to live. Stewardship is basic logic, common sense, like brushing your teeth.

When Lomborg says "with limited budgets you cannot do everything" that is pure Fraser Institute speak, pure flighty Gary Collins spin control, and pure Gordon Campbell jabberwocky. The budget is a political slinky in their hands.

Remember how "limited" the budget became when the Campbell Liberals wanted to justify cuts to services, cuts that devastated the most vulnerable in our province, cuts that ended up funding private business to ensure that privatization always held the winning hand in the sell-out of our public assets. Now again, months before an election, Gordon Campbell has "expanded" the budget again, giving out millions that do little to rectify the damage while giving the appearance of doing so.

Suddenly there is supposedly more money even though food banks have never been more busy, even though there are more homeless, and even though over 22,000 full-time jobs have been lost in BC.

So, the money is always there, it never really changes, it's a slinky toy, that contracts and expands according to the self-interests of who is controlling it.

Lomborg is framing the issue economically and as I've suggested somewhere before we should rally against this with a more accurate and honest economic framing. In other words, it is economic systems that exploit people and natural resources that are at fault. They are the root cause of world poverty.

If Lomborg were really interested in ending world poverty he would begin by having a serious talk with the Fraser Institute whose policies, as we now see in BC, have not only assaulted the natural resources of this province, but have indeed sold them out. Their policies have led to more part-time jobs, over 22,000 less full-time ones and more poverty - ironically, the very same poverty they say they are trying to address by downplaying the significance of global warming and manipulating the debate into a choice of one issue over the other.

"with limited budgets you cannot do everything" = only with money can you do anything = the institution of monetary value has usurped...

ai-chee-wow-a, it's

... look on the bright side of life....da da...da,da,da,da,da,da, the sunny side of life... da,da,

"...economic liberties are destroying [our] home." - AcRb (see above posting)

For the record:

MISSION (CKNW-Feb 09 2005)-- A grassroots group has dropped a legal challenge to Mission city council's approval of one of the biggest development proposals on the Lower Mainland.

The Genstar development is expected to double the local population over a 40-year period.

The 'Citizens Against Urban Sprawl Society' launched a judicial review opposing the massive Genstar subdivision, saying their environmental and sustainability concerns were ignored.

But while advised they had an excellent case, spokesperson Wendy Bowman says the announced participation of Genstar's legal team in the proceedings indicated the community group would need very deep pockets.

She says her group doesn't have the financial means to continue.

"Which is connected to the shin-bone...":

"China feasts on Canada's resources" - Globe & Mail, May 22, 04

China is booming, and nobody knows that better than Canadian resource producers... Already the world's sixth-biggest economy, China's share of global output is expected to double by 2020. Its voracious appetite for raw materials...has pushed commodities prices through the roof...

A take on the big picture:

"What maximum consumption of natural and environmental resources in [Industrial Countries] and [Developing Countries] must be allowed - in the same or differentiated threshold levels – for feeding the “machinery” of economic progress associated with international competitiveness, when this is confronted with the current sustainability challenge in view of globalisation and late-coming development?

"Without stretching too far into the future, it could be asked furthermore: Is it not more promising to control, right now, the “oligarchical consumption” (Harborth, 1991) of global commons by the North, recurring to explicit redistribution mechanisms related to renewed institutional regimes on the international level? These would favour the South by providing its people with the same access to the Earth’s resources and equal rights for their utilisation and for the corresponding emissions derived. Thus, DC societies would have access to nature and the rights to use it as much as or even more than ICs, which have historically appropriated the services of nature in the form of a thus far disproportional environmental consumption. It is well known that the North with 20 percent of the world's population “feeds” its growth with 80 percent of the resources available globally, whereas the consumption level of the South is barely 20 percent of this natural wealth (Ibid.).

"What kind of transformation of North-South relationships could be expected in order to counterbalance this other inequity on the international level? As discussed before, during and after UNCED in Rio ’92, the elimination of this development disparity can by no means imply that the South should reach the same numerical consumption of the environment such as the North does currently, in order to allow the South a similar material progress and socioeconomic development in the majority of its resource-rich, but marginalised-from-use economies (Bhaskar/Glyn, 1995). In view of the enormous material/energy-intensive patterns of production and consumption in the North, such an equalisation of diverging resource input standards would very probably go beyond the so-called ‘carrying capacity’ of the Earth’s ecosystem. That is seen less in terms of limited tangible resources but more in terms of eco-systemic productivity, resilience and stability (Perrings, 1996).

"Both potential conflicts, i.e. the social inequality between ICs and DCs and the intolerable stress on ecosystem adaptability due to increasing resource use intensities (once having taken the counterbalancing technical progress on resource productivity as “frozen” or insufficient for reasons of precaution), constitute risks of far-reaching scope and complexity which require a new management approach not yet “available in blueprints”.- Edgar Fürst

One of those "blueprints"?:

BEIJING, Jan. 28, 05 -- China will face electricity shortages this year, as pressure on the country's energy resources continues to outpace production.

An official at the National Development and Reform Commission predicts an electricity shortage this year of 25 million kilowatts.

The government will...shut down enterprises that consume too much energy.

Tempting, but no; hence...?:

See opening quote.

GLOBAL RESOURCE CONSUMPTION, ENVIRONMENTAL SPACE AND ECOLOGICAL STRUCTURAL CHANGE: IMPLICATIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF NORTH-SOUTH RELATIONS by Edgar Fürst, International Centre of Economic Policy for Sustainable Development (CINPE) Universidad Nacional, Heredia, Costa Rica. 2001 [www.spaef.com/IJE D_PUB/v3n2_furst.pdf]