NY Times Strands
- ptooey - Jul 16, 2025 - 8:10am
Trump
- Red_Dragon - Jul 16, 2025 - 7:58am
Today in History
- Red_Dragon - Jul 16, 2025 - 7:48am
Wordle - daily game
- Coaxial - Jul 16, 2025 - 7:34am
NYTimes Connections
- maryte - Jul 16, 2025 - 7:18am
Radio Paradise Comments
- Coaxial - Jul 16, 2025 - 6:31am
Great Old Songs You Rarely Hear Anymore
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Jul 16, 2025 - 5:34am
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously
- R_P - Jul 15, 2025 - 10:46pm
Are they married yet? YES THEY ARE!
- buddy - Jul 15, 2025 - 9:20pm
July 2025 Photo Theme - Stone
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Jul 15, 2025 - 8:45pm
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Jul 15, 2025 - 8:41pm
Strips, cartoons, illustrations
- R_P - Jul 15, 2025 - 7:07pm
Radio Paradise NFL Pick'em Group
- sunybuny - Jul 15, 2025 - 3:05pm
Beyond mix
- victory806 - Jul 15, 2025 - 12:53pm
What Makes You Laugh?
- Isabeau - Jul 15, 2025 - 12:35pm
Alexa Skill
- buddy - Jul 15, 2025 - 12:12pm
Live Music
- ScottFromWyoming - Jul 15, 2025 - 11:58am
Name My Band
- Isabeau - Jul 15, 2025 - 11:33am
But Why?
- black321 - Jul 15, 2025 - 10:19am
Where is the airplane?
- rgio - Jul 15, 2025 - 9:42am
Israel
- R_P - Jul 15, 2025 - 9:18am
Climate Change
- black321 - Jul 15, 2025 - 8:03am
Baseball, anyone?
- Red_Dragon - Jul 15, 2025 - 8:00am
Gardeners Corner
- Coaxial - Jul 15, 2025 - 6:42am
Trouble with Verizon? Or Tailscale?
- jarro - Jul 15, 2025 - 6:39am
Bug Reports & Feature Requests
- bobrk - Jul 14, 2025 - 3:56pm
Economix
- R_P - Jul 14, 2025 - 3:27pm
Immigration
- R_P - Jul 14, 2025 - 3:11pm
The Marie Antoinette Moment...
- R_P - Jul 14, 2025 - 11:35am
Artificial Intelligence
- R_P - Jul 14, 2025 - 11:16am
Fox Spews
- R_P - Jul 14, 2025 - 10:52am
What is the meaning of this?
- rgio - Jul 14, 2025 - 10:44am
Fascism In America
- Red_Dragon - Jul 14, 2025 - 9:59am
260,000 Posts in one thread?
- oldviolin - Jul 14, 2025 - 8:40am
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •
- oldviolin - Jul 14, 2025 - 8:04am
Why atheists swallow,
- black321 - Jul 14, 2025 - 8:00am
USA! USA! USA!
- ColdMiser - Jul 14, 2025 - 7:57am
On Life as Art- heard it on KTRT 95.7
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Jul 14, 2025 - 7:56am
Comics!
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Jul 14, 2025 - 7:53am
Music Videos
- black321 - Jul 14, 2025 - 7:51am
M.A.G.A.
- R_P - Jul 13, 2025 - 3:53pm
Infinite cat
- Isabeau - Jul 13, 2025 - 11:37am
Dialing 1-800-Manbird
- oldviolin - Jul 13, 2025 - 11:35am
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum
- VV - Jul 12, 2025 - 9:16pm
What the hell OV?
- oldviolin - Jul 12, 2025 - 8:39pm
Europe
- R_P - Jul 12, 2025 - 6:30pm
Democratic Party
- R_P - Jul 12, 2025 - 1:37pm
A motivational quote
- steeler - Jul 11, 2025 - 6:58pm
Beyond...
- GeneP59 - Jul 11, 2025 - 6:35pm
Protest Songs
- R_P - Jul 11, 2025 - 12:38pm
True Confessions
- oldviolin - Jul 11, 2025 - 11:56am
Jess Roden - legendary UK vocalist - and "Seven Windows" ...
- J_C - Jul 11, 2025 - 11:22am
It seemed like a good idea at the time
- ptooey - Jul 11, 2025 - 6:10am
Country Up The Bumpkin
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Jul 10, 2025 - 9:13pm
TV shows you watch
- R_P - Jul 10, 2025 - 5:31pm
Wasted Money
- GeneP59 - Jul 10, 2025 - 5:22pm
Rock mix / repitition
- walk2k - Jul 10, 2025 - 4:31pm
How's the weather?
- GeneP59 - Jul 10, 2025 - 3:21pm
Random Solutions - Random Advice
- oldviolin - Jul 10, 2025 - 10:11am
Spambags on RP
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Jul 10, 2025 - 9:02am
misheard lyrics
- GeneP59 - Jul 10, 2025 - 6:30am
New Song Submissions system
- Teja - Jul 10, 2025 - 3:36am
TEXAS
- Red_Dragon - Jul 9, 2025 - 5:57pm
DQ (as in 'Daily Quote')
- black321 - Jul 9, 2025 - 11:33am
Republican Party
- Red_Dragon - Jul 9, 2025 - 7:50am
Outstanding Covers
- oldviolin - Jul 8, 2025 - 9:29pm
Trump Lies™
- R_P - Jul 8, 2025 - 7:14pm
Musky Mythology
- R_P - Jul 8, 2025 - 5:43pm
Love & Hate
- oldviolin - Jul 8, 2025 - 8:15am
Anti-War
- R_P - Jul 7, 2025 - 6:45pm
Environment
- R_P - Jul 7, 2025 - 5:38pm
(Big) Media Watch
- R_P - Jul 7, 2025 - 12:04pm
The Grateful Dead
- black321 - Jul 7, 2025 - 11:17am
Mixtape Culture Club
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Jul 7, 2025 - 8:59am
Russia
- Red_Dragon - Jul 7, 2025 - 7:39am
|
Index »
Radio Paradise/General »
General Discussion »
Climate Change
|
Page: Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 123, 124, 125 ... 132, 133, 134 Next |
steeler

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth 
|
Posted:
Dec 8, 2009 - 11:32am |
|
edieraye wrote: 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.
I do not understand what you mean by that sentence. I do agree that issues should be framed as positively as possible. These are not issues of whether littering is wrong. One of the issues being debated is whether human consumption (specifically, carbon emissions) are contributing significanlty to climate change. So, I'm kind of at a loss as to how you would propose addressing that as simply a challenge to our stewardship of the earth. To cut down on carbon emissions, for example, would entail more than just reinforcing to each individual that he or she must act in a way that better fosters a cleaner earth. As for life approaches: It is true that choosing to put out a particular fire first is not a pleasant choice, but it still is a choice. Could just let it burn and suffer the consequences — whatever they might be. People do choose to do just that. Is making the tougher, unpleasant choice a trap? Sometimes, I do feel that way. Other times, I see it as avoiding the trap.
|
|
edieraye


|
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


|
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

Location: Comfortably numb in So Texas Gender:  
|
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.
|
|
islander

Location: West coast somewhere Gender:  
|
Posted:
Dec 8, 2009 - 11:12am |
|
Coaxial wrote:
If it doesn't will you STFU?
Doubtful.
|
|
islander

Location: West coast somewhere Gender:  
|
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

Location: Comfortably numb in So Texas Gender:  
|
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

Location: An earth without maps Gender:  
|
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

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

Location: Powell Gender:  
|
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

Location: somewhere in Europe Gender:  
|
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

Location: Land of Laughing Waters Gender:  
|
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

Location: Simi Valley, CA Gender:  
|
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

Location: esse quam videri Gender:  
|
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

Location: esse quam videri Gender:  
|
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

Location: West coast somewhere Gender:  
|
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

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

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


|
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

Location: Land of Laughing Waters Gender:  
|
Posted:
Dec 8, 2009 - 10:40am |
|
oldviolin wrote:Oh, what the heck...   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. 
...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
|
|
|