[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

USA! USA! USA! - R_P - Jun 17, 2024 - 9:44pm
 
Ukraine - R_P - Jun 17, 2024 - 8:56pm
 
20+ year listeners? - kurtster - Jun 17, 2024 - 8:11pm
 
Wordle - daily game - Manbird - Jun 17, 2024 - 7:43pm
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - buddy - Jun 17, 2024 - 5:20pm
 
What did you have for dinner? - buddy - Jun 17, 2024 - 5:12pm
 
Gotta Get Your Drink On - Manbird - Jun 17, 2024 - 4:49pm
 
Today in History - Manbird - Jun 17, 2024 - 4:41pm
 
Climate Change - R_P - Jun 17, 2024 - 2:35pm
 
NY Times Strands - geoff_morphini - Jun 17, 2024 - 2:18pm
 
Israel - R_P - Jun 17, 2024 - 12:46pm
 
Predictions - Proclivities - Jun 17, 2024 - 12:10pm
 
NYTimes Connections - Bill_J - Jun 17, 2024 - 11:17am
 
Baseball, anyone? - ScottFromWyoming - Jun 17, 2024 - 11:00am
 
Trump - Steely_D - Jun 17, 2024 - 8:38am
 
2024 Elections! - R_P - Jun 17, 2024 - 6:40am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - Coaxial - Jun 17, 2024 - 4:38am
 
What Are You Going To Do Today? - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jun 16, 2024 - 8:57pm
 
June 2024 Photo Theme - Eyes - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jun 16, 2024 - 8:55pm
 
Things You Thought Today - Red_Dragon - Jun 16, 2024 - 8:22pm
 
What Did You See Today? - Manbird - Jun 16, 2024 - 2:39pm
 
Geomorphology - kurtster - Jun 16, 2024 - 1:29pm
 
Outstanding Covers - Proclivities - Jun 16, 2024 - 11:07am
 
Artificial Intelligence - thisbody - Jun 16, 2024 - 10:53am
 
The Chomsky / Zinn Reader - thisbody - Jun 16, 2024 - 10:42am
 
Name My Band - thisbody - Jun 16, 2024 - 10:24am
 
The Dragons' Roost - oldviolin - Jun 16, 2024 - 9:35am
 
Football, soccer, futbol, calcio... - thisbody - Jun 16, 2024 - 8:35am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - heinlein2302 - Jun 16, 2024 - 2:29am
 
No stream after station ID - arlen.nelson969 - Jun 15, 2024 - 2:29pm
 
Business as Usual - kurtster - Jun 15, 2024 - 9:53am
 
favorite love songs - maryte - Jun 15, 2024 - 8:58am
 
Song of the Day - oldviolin - Jun 15, 2024 - 8:08am
 
RightWingNutZ - thisbody - Jun 15, 2024 - 1:28am
 
What Makes You Laugh? - Antigone - Jun 14, 2024 - 7:04pm
 
Lyrics that strike a chord today... - oldviolin - Jun 14, 2024 - 3:15pm
 
China - R_P - Jun 14, 2024 - 2:59pm
 
what the hell, miamizsun? - oldviolin - Jun 14, 2024 - 2:08pm
 
Religion - Steely_D - Jun 14, 2024 - 1:28pm
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Jun 14, 2024 - 8:56am
 
Solar / Wind / Geothermal / Efficiency Energy - Proclivities - Jun 14, 2024 - 6:42am
 
Just Wrong - ptooey - Jun 14, 2024 - 6:22am
 
Florida - R_P - Jun 13, 2024 - 3:35pm
 
Democratic Party - thisbody - Jun 13, 2024 - 9:08am
 
Strips, cartoons, illustrations - thisbody - Jun 13, 2024 - 8:56am
 
Animal Resistance - thisbody - Jun 13, 2024 - 8:04am
 
Sonos - konz - Jun 13, 2024 - 7:47am
 
New Music - lievendegrauwe - Jun 13, 2024 - 12:43am
 
The Green Thread: A place to share info about living a gr... - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Jun 12, 2024 - 11:48pm
 
Derplahoma! - ScottFromWyoming - Jun 12, 2024 - 9:29pm
 
The Obituary Page - ScottFromWyoming - Jun 12, 2024 - 9:16am
 
Guantánamo Resorts & Other Fun Trips - R_P - Jun 12, 2024 - 8:41am
 
Joe Biden - rgio - Jun 12, 2024 - 8:28am
 
Right, Left, Right of Left, Left of Right, Center...? - kurtster - Jun 11, 2024 - 10:36pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jun 11, 2024 - 3:51pm
 
Breaking News - Isabeau - Jun 11, 2024 - 2:29pm
 
Calling all RP Roku users! - RPnate1 - Jun 11, 2024 - 12:50pm
 
Words that should be put on the substitutes bench for a year - sunybuny - Jun 11, 2024 - 4:38am
 
Europe - thisbody - Jun 11, 2024 - 1:23am
 
Marijuana: Baked News. - R_P - Jun 10, 2024 - 12:01pm
 
Streaming Marantz/HEOS - rgio - Jun 10, 2024 - 11:43am
 
Is there any DOG news out there? - thisbody - Jun 9, 2024 - 12:38pm
 
Quick! I need a chicken... - thisbody - Jun 9, 2024 - 10:38am
 
Economix - Bill_J - Jun 8, 2024 - 5:25pm
 
Snakes & streaming images. WTH is going on? - rasta_tiger - Jun 8, 2024 - 2:16pm
 
Great guitar faces - thisbody - Jun 8, 2024 - 10:39am
 
TEXAS - maryte - Jun 8, 2024 - 9:21am
 
NASA & other news from space - Beaker - Jun 8, 2024 - 8:23am
 
Live Music - oldviolin - Jun 7, 2024 - 10:03pm
 
Republican Party - kcar - Jun 7, 2024 - 8:11pm
 
Lyrics that are stuck in your head today... - Manbird - Jun 7, 2024 - 8:04pm
 
What the hell OV? - oldviolin - Jun 7, 2024 - 7:42pm
 
Can you afford to retire? - JrzyTmata - Jun 7, 2024 - 2:05pm
 
Old timers, crosswords & - ScottFromWyoming - Jun 7, 2024 - 12:09pm
 
Military Matters - R_P - Jun 7, 2024 - 11:31am
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Climate Change Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 117, 118, 119 ... 126, 127, 128  Next
Post to this Topic
edieraye

edieraye Avatar



Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 11:23am

 steeler wrote:
Personally, I do think the degree of the "problem" matters in terms of the urgency in finding a solution. This is true in almost all aspects of our lives.  We priortize based upon which fire needs to be put out first. So, defining a problem also entails estimating the degree of the threat if the problem remains unresolved.    
 
Oh see I hate living my life that way.  Of course, there are times I fall into that trap.  Reacting to whatever most urgently needs tending to.  But it isn't a good place to operate from.  I much prefer when I am making choices in my life.  I would argue that addressing the environment from the standpoint of best practices would garner more good will and better results than the band aid approach. My two cents.
edieraye

edieraye Avatar



Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 11:18am

Painted_Turtle wrote:
I think it matters to the people living on low lying islands or in coastal regions.  There could be a massive loss of life in those areas if all of the polar water melts & they lose their place to live.

There is also the problem of the glaciers melting all over the earth.  What will happen to all the people in Europe who depend on them to keep their rivers flowing and provide drinking water?

But is that the reason we need to act responsibly toward the environment?  Because there is a problem?  I disagree.  I think we ought to be responsible stewards because it is the right thing to do.
 
For example, let's say that I could litter with no repercussions.  I would not get caught, there would be no negative consequences to myself or to anyone else.  It would still be wrong.  I'd like to see the global discussion move away from problems and solutions.  If everyone listened to me, we would frame the discussion in terms of respect, responsibility, and doing what is right not because doing otherwise would have negative consequences but simply because it is the right thing to do.
Coaxial

Coaxial Avatar

Location: Comfortably numb in So Texas
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 11:12am

 Beaker wrote:

It amuses me that I irritate you so — and you never fail to show it at every possible opportunity.


 

I'm the only one T.{#Good-vibes}
islander

islander Avatar

Location: West coast somewhere
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 11:12am

 Coaxial wrote:


If it doesn't will you STFU?

 
Doubtful.

islander

islander Avatar

Location: West coast somewhere
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 11:08am

 Monkeysdad wrote:

That there is a "problem" is what I find so vexing. It only seems like yesterday(1973) to me that I was given a Scholastic Weekly Reader telling us of the coming ice age..."global cooling" if you will, to wind up 36-37 years later in a situation where the sky is falling. In my lifetime I've watched cars go from pure Internal Combustion Engines to having smog pumps, fuel injection, PCV valves, catalytic converters, 9-10 mpg to 20-30 mpg,efficiencies, all spurred on by science that said: "If we don't do this, we're doomed", all these years later we still seem to be doomed, are we to believe that the same science that was supposed to save us then is going to save us now?! A good question I think, because when I look at the staggering cost of what is being proposed I'd like to know that it's really going to do the trick....yet no one can say for sure that all these actions will indeed reverse the warming trend. Aerospace...airliners in particular are currently being vilified as one of the major polluters of the planet, when I do the math for an aircraft flying from L.A. to NYC a 757 dollar-for-dollar is one of the most efficient ways to move a person across the country, but you'd never know that to listen to the "experts"(and I won't go into Nancy Pelosi's carbon footprint) and the public just laps it up without sitting down and doing a couple of simple equations.
I have a hard time keeping it all straight to be quite honest, for every statement from a colleague or media pundit about the perils of climate change I can almost catatgorically give a "yeah, but..." retort. I'm all for the argument that we do as a planet need to clean it up and preserve our resources but this all seems like a knee-jerk response to quasi-substantiated issues from my perspective.
 
A couple of points. Per capita efficiency of an airliner doesn't mean anything about it's overall impact. It's the full system we have created and it's impact on the environment that we need to look at.

Quasi-substantiated? Science is never absolute. If it is, it is not science. A significant majority of legitimate peer reviewed science (the method we use to give merit to such things) says we are having an impact. It will always be open to challenge, but that doesn't mean it's not a legitimate point that we should operate from. We elect leaders w/ less than a 1% majority, and we rally behind them as a country (or at least we agree not to riot over the inauguration). We should be able to rally around a 75%+ majority of scientific opinion.

Knee-jerk?  Nothing of this scale will ever be knee-jerk. It may be wrong, but it's hardly knee-jerk. That is just a label you are applying because you disagree with it.

Legacy. I have no children. But I do care what this place will look like in 100+ years. Even if the majority opinion is wrong on the cause, don't you think it's wise to address the problem? Or should we just wait and hope that some one will start to proclaim another ice age to worry about?  I'd be happy if we could just stop peeing upstream on the river.

Coaxial

Coaxial Avatar

Location: Comfortably numb in So Texas
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 11:08am

 Beaker wrote:
.
I predict that the CRU kerfluffle will result in the exposure of exactly the above scenario.  Early evidence appears to be pointing that way.
 

If it doesn't will you STFU?
black321

black321 Avatar

Location: An earth without maps
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 11:07am

 Monkeysdad wrote:

That there is a "problem" is what I find so vexing. It only seems like yesterday(1973) to me that I was given a Scholastic Weekly Reader telling us of the coming ice age..."global cooling" if you will, to wind up 36-37 years later in a situation where the sky is falling. In my lifetime I've watched cars go from pure Internal Combustion Engines to having smog pumps, fuel injection, PCV valves, catalytic converters, 9-10 mpg to 20-30 mpg,efficiencies, all spurred on by science that said: "If we don't do this, we're doomed", all these years later we still seem to be doomed, are we to believe that the same science that was supposed to save us then is going to save us now?! A good question I think, because when I look at the staggering cost of what is being proposed I'd like to know that it's really going to do the trick....yet no one can say for sure that all these actions will indeed reverse the warming trend. Aerospace...airliners in particular are currently being vilified as one of the major polluters of the planet, when I do the math for an aircraft flying from L.A. to NYC a 757 dollar-for-dollar is one of the most efficient ways to move a person across the country, but you'd never know that to listen to the "experts"(and I won't go into Nancy Pelosi's carbon footprint) and the public just laps it up without sitting down and doing a couple of simple equations.
I have a hard time keeping it all straight to be quite honest, for every statement from a colleague or media pundit about the perils of climate change I can almost catatgorically give a "yeah, but..." retort. I'm all for the argument that we do as a planet need to clean it up and preserve our resources but this all seems like a knee-jerk response to quasi-substantiated issues from my perspective.

 

cooling or warming regardless...they were saying back in '73 that the burning of fossil fuels was a bad idea for a clean/healthy planet. 

and re., " 9-10 mpg to 20-30 mpg,efficiencies" - that some great advancement.


samiyam

samiyam Avatar

Location: Moving North


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 11:07am

 Beaker wrote:
Here's a few thoughts I've had percolating for a while now. I'm putting it out here for your amusement and derision:
  • Global warming is a populist topic that politicians can attach to with little fear of criticism.  All populist topics go through a "fad" phase.  This topic just happens to have reached that phase.
  • Politicians hold most of the purse strings to funding and grants for research into global warming / climate change.  Somebody's got to be the scrivener.  If not them, then who?
  • Climate scientists recognize their field of expertise is a hot topic of much public interest.  Unless they're fools.
  • Scientists have long recognized the need to 'publish or perish'.  Sure... your point being?
  • Research in the field of climate change/global warming has attracted huge sums of money to the scientists and institutions conducting investigations into global warming / climate change. OK, yeah... here's an interesting point.
  • Scientists are people just like you and me.  They are subject to the same lures of corruption and profit motive.  I'm still dreaming about that condo on St. Lucia, yeah, so what?
  • The personal economic well-being of the global warming / climate change scientists is directly linked to their ability to bring in large amounts of funding to their institutions. Unfair, but true.
  • This is a scenario that is ripe for corruption and personal greed.  Let me teach you a new trade, son.
  • This scenario suggests some scientists may be inclined to skew their work to produce a product that will please their institutional and political masters, thus ensuring their ongoing job security and enhancing their personal influence.  Scientist are capable of cheating?  No!  Say It's Not So!

I predict that the CRU kerfluffle will result in the exposure of exactly the above scenario.  Early evidence appears to be pointing that way.
 
I predict that larger and larger storms will mess with your health and electrical connections.

ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 11:01am

 Beaker wrote:
Here's a few thoughts I've had percolating for a while now. I'm putting it out here for your amusement and derision:
  • Global warming is a populist topic that politicians can attach to with little fear of criticism.
  • Politicians hold most of the purse strings to funding and grants for research into global warming / climate change.
  • Climate scientists recognize their field of expertise is a hot topic of much public interest.
  • Scientists have long recognized the need to 'publish or perish'.
  • Research in the field of climate change/global warming has attracted huge sums of money to the scientists and institutions conducting investigations into global warming / climate change.
  • Scientists are people just like you and me.  They are subject to the same lures of corruption and profit motive.
  • The personal economic well-being of the global warming / climate change scientists is directly linked to their ability to bring in large amounts of funding to their institutions.
  • This is a scenario that is ripe for corruption and personal greed.
  • This scenario suggests some scientists may be inclined to skew their work to produce a product that will please their institutional and political masters, thus ensuring their ongoing job security and enhancing their personal influence.

I predict that the CRU kerfluffle will result in the exposure of exactly the above scenario.  Early evidence appears to be pointing that way.
 
Same as it ever was. Which tempts people to do silly things like whatever's most convenient (ignore all science, keep on keepin' on) and hope they're going to be okay. Or pray they're going to be okay.

MrsHobieJoe

MrsHobieJoe Avatar

Location: somewhere in Europe
Gender: Female


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 11:01am

 Monkeysdad wrote:

That there is a "problem" is what I find so vexing. It only seems like yesterday(1973) to me that I was given a Scholastic Weekly Reader telling us of the coming ice age..."global cooling"

 

Just picking up on this point when I was studying for my geography degree in the late 1980s there were papers out there that had identified the problem of sea level rise so there is at least twenty years provenance for development of the science.


Painted_Turtle

Painted_Turtle Avatar

Location: Land of Laughing Waters
Gender: Female


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 10:58am

 edieraye wrote:


Does it matter if there is a problem or not?  Okay, so I'm approaching this from my admittedly Christian POV.  God created the Earth.  He gave it to humanity and told us to take care of it.  It is called stewardship.  You don't have to agree with that - somedays I have my doubts - but it leads me to the following position:

We are to handle with respect and care and gratitude all of the people, resources, and opportunities that we encounter.  That means no squandoring, no taking for granted, no abusing.  We are to do the best we are able environmentally, regardless of whether there is a problem or not.  We are to leave the world a better place than we found it.

Personally, I don't care if there isn't a problem - I still think we need to take steps to be better stewards.

 
I think it matters to the people living on low lying islands or in coastal regions.  There could be a massive loss of life in those areas if all of the polar water melts & they lose their place to live.

There is also the problem of the glaciers melting all over the earth.  What will happen to all the people in Europe who depend on them to keep their rivers flowing and provide drinking water?

I agree that we need to become better stewards of our earth.  Polluting the oceans, rivers & land hasn't been working out very well for us or all of earth's animals.  Excellent point.

  I know that some Christians have been actively working on behalf of a more sustainable environment.  Its a wonderful example of diverse idealogical groups joining hands for the common good of all.




Monkeysdad

Monkeysdad Avatar

Location: Simi Valley, CA
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 10:56am

 steeler wrote:


I surely do not know.  

My framework in approaching anything, however, is to first identify the problem — if there is one.  There are those denying that there is a problem.  So, we are stuck on that.  Only after a problem has been identified, can we be in position to try to find solutions. How does one find a solution to a problem one does not recognize as a problem?

That's why I find it frustrating to read stuff that assails those who are providing "evidence" of a problem.  

Now, I think Lazy8 and others are saying that even if there is a solution, which we have not yet determined, it may not be feasible in economic terms.  However, if the problem is the fate of the earth itself — or at least certain species on it, including humans — than can any cost be too great?  

What proof is there that there is no problem, or that if there is a problem, it is not worth trying to find a solution?   

 

 
That there is a "problem" is what I find so vexing. It only seems like yesterday(1973) to me that I was given a Scholastic Weekly Reader telling us of the coming ice age..."global cooling" if you will, to wind up 36-37 years later in a situation where the sky is falling. In my lifetime I've watched cars go from pure Internal Combustion Engines to having smog pumps, fuel injection, PCV valves, catalytic converters, 9-10 mpg to 20-30 mpg,efficiencies, all spurred on by science that said: "If we don't do this, we're doomed", all these years later we still seem to be doomed, are we to believe that the same science that was supposed to save us then is going to save us now?! A good question I think, because when I look at the staggering cost of what is being proposed I'd like to know that it's really going to do the trick....yet no one can say for sure that all these actions will indeed reverse the warming trend. Aerospace...airliners in particular are currently being vilified as one of the major polluters of the planet, when I do the math for an aircraft flying from L.A. to NYC a 757 dollar-for-dollar is one of the most efficient ways to move a person across the country, but you'd never know that to listen to the "experts"(and I won't go into Nancy Pelosi's carbon footprint) and the public just laps it up without sitting down and doing a couple of simple equations.
I have a hard time keeping it all straight to be quite honest, for every statement from a colleague or media pundit about the perils of climate change I can almost catatgorically give a "yeah, but..." retort. I'm all for the argument that we do as a planet need to clean it up and preserve our resources but this all seems like a knee-jerk response to quasi-substantiated issues from my perspective.

oldviolin

oldviolin Avatar

Location: esse quam videri
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 10:50am

 islander wrote:



I hope my mountain/island has a cave.... just in case.
 
Can I visit with my friend Wilson?

oldviolin

oldviolin Avatar

Location: esse quam videri
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 10:48am

 edieraye wrote:


Does it matter if there is a problem or not?  Okay, so I'm approaching this from my admittedly Christian POV.  God created the Earth.  He gave it to humanity and told us to take care of it.  It is called stewardship.  You don't have to agree with that - somedays I have my doubts - but it leads me to the following position:

We are to handle with respect and care and gratitude all of the people, resources, and opportunities that we encounter.  That means no squandoring, no taking for granted, no abusing.  We are to do the best we are able environmentally, regardless of whether there is a problem or not.  We are to leave the world a better place than we found it.

Personally, I don't care if there isn't a problem - I still think we need to take steps to be better stewards.

 

If only...
islander

islander Avatar

Location: West coast somewhere
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 10:47am

 steeler wrote:

I say, even if human consumption has not knocked the whole natural order of things out of whack, we still have to know that something is happening that can be and likely will be threatening to human and animal life.  Yesterday I cited the Ice Age as an example of something that occurred and wiped out species.  The earth survived, sure, but a lot of species did not. That, alone, seems to me to provide ample reason for concern.  So, why we should be looking for answers, we're bogged down on whether there, in fact, is a problem.  Wonder if the dinosaurs had the same conversations?                    

 


I hope my mountain/island has a cave.... just in case.

steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 10:47am

 edieraye wrote:


Does it matter if there is a problem or not?  Okay, so I'm approaching this from my admittedly Christian POV.  God created the Earth.  He gave it to humanity and told us to take care of it.  It is called stewardship.  You don't have to agree with that - somedays I have my doubts - but it leads me to the following position:

We are to handle with respect and care and gratitude all of the people, resources, and opportunities that we encounter.  That means no squandoring, no taking for granted, no abusing.  We are to do the best we are able environmentally, regardless of whether there is a problem or not.  We are to leave the world a better place than we found it.

Personally, I don't care if there isn't a problem - I still think we need to take steps to be better stewards.

  

I suspect that the conceptual problem would be the same.  Those saying there is no problem could also state that as, We are being good stewards; nothing needs to be changed.  

Using your parlance to frame the issue:  Are we being good stewards of the earth and its environment?  If not, what do we need to do differently? 

Personally, I do think the degree of the "problem" matters in terms of the urgency in finding a solution. This is true in almost all aspects of our lives.  We priortize based upon which fire needs to be put out first. So, defining a problem also entails estimating the degree of the threat if the problem remains unresolved.    
  


steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 10:41am

 islander wrote:

There are some who still claim the earth is flat. Do we wait for them to come around, or do we build ships and sail for new lands? At what point do we stop the study? How much evidence is enough? We could literally study this one to death, but I doubt that's a good approach.
 

Agreed.
edieraye

edieraye Avatar



Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 10:40am

 steeler wrote:
What proof is there that there is no problem, or that if there is a problem, it is not worth trying to find a solution?   
 

Does it matter if there is a problem or not?  Okay, so I'm approaching this from my admittedly Christian POV.  God created the Earth.  He gave it to humanity and told us to take care of it.  It is called stewardship.  You don't have to agree with that - somedays I have my doubts - but it leads me to the following position:

We are to handle with respect and care and gratitude all of the people, resources, and opportunities that we encounter.  That means no squandoring, no taking for granted, no abusing.  We are to do the best we are able environmentally, regardless of whether there is a problem or not.  We are to leave the world a better place than we found it.

Personally, I don't care if there isn't a problem - I still think we need to take steps to be better stewards.
Painted_Turtle

Painted_Turtle Avatar

Location: Land of Laughing Waters
Gender: Female


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 10:40am

 oldviolin wrote:


Oh, what the heck...{#Wink}



 
Too good OV!  That should be one of the prizes for the

Winner of the Fossil of the Day Award!

12/07/09 opening day of the talks

THIRD PLACE: CANADA

"Canada earns its first Fossil of the COP for environment minister Jim Prentice's proclaiming that his nation "won't be swayed" by Copenhagen "hype"...

And yet, if there's a country on the face of this planet that so desperately needs to be swayed, it is Canada.

 Since announcing its plan in 2006 for reducing emissions by 3% below 1990 levels, the Harper government has consistently refused to adopt any actual regulatory framework to start reducing emissions—from, for example, the rapidly growing tar sands sector.

 Prentice said the target wouldn't change.

 So not only does Canada have perhaps the worst record of all industrialised countries, they're now vowing to stick to it.

 The world is gathering in Copenhagen to negotiate; Canada says its plan is to not negotiate. Adding insult to injury, South Africa now has a more ambitious target than Alberta, one of the richest places on earth... and home of some of the world's highest per capita emissions."

Maybe some RPeeps are upset that they might loose some of their beloved Oil Sand Tars Dollars, so it becomes easier to simply deny that the climate is warming or that sea levels are rising.  Makes me wonder if its not politics, but simply allegiance to Corporate money earnings. {#Think}

...don't get me wrong, not all corporations or businesses are against environmentally cleaner policy.  Many are concerned about it and are looking for ways to run their businesses in an environmentally sustainable manner that won't destroy life on the planet as we know it.  Hopefully those are the ones that will survive.

1st Place for the Fossil Award goees to:

1st: All industrialised countries, that means the USA is in that Award category



islander

islander Avatar

Location: West coast somewhere
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 10:37am

 Beaker wrote:

Nice avoidance of my specific charges.  Good job.



 
Beaker 101, lather, rinse, repeat. 26 posts to go. I'm waiting for the graphs and 4 part harmony.

Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 117, 118, 119 ... 126, 127, 128  Next