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

Coffee - islander - Dec 14, 2019 - 6:53am
 
Art Show - Proclivities - Dec 14, 2019 - 6:11am
 
Impeachment Time: - miamizsun - Dec 14, 2019 - 5:26am
 
Things You Thought Today - miamizsun - Dec 14, 2019 - 5:24am
 
What makes you smile? - miamizsun - Dec 14, 2019 - 4:57am
 
Some servers in the pool are down? - sirdroseph - Dec 14, 2019 - 4:38am
 
Canada - westslope - Dec 13, 2019 - 6:21pm
 
Automotive Lust - Red_Dragon - Dec 13, 2019 - 3:26pm
 
NEED A COMPUTER GEEK! - Manbird - Dec 13, 2019 - 1:06pm
 
Trump - Red_Dragon - Dec 13, 2019 - 11:44am
 
Derplahoma Questions and Points of Interest - Red_Dragon - Dec 13, 2019 - 11:43am
 
Strips, cartoons, illustrations - R_P - Dec 13, 2019 - 10:04am
 
Food Texture Issues - miamizsun - Dec 13, 2019 - 9:33am
 
Florida - rgio - Dec 13, 2019 - 9:02am
 
RPeep News You Should Know - ScottFromWyoming - Dec 13, 2019 - 8:03am
 
Grammar Question - miamizsun - Dec 13, 2019 - 7:48am
 
Rock Movies/Documentaries - sirdroseph - Dec 13, 2019 - 6:47am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Dec 13, 2019 - 6:22am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - sunybuny - Dec 13, 2019 - 5:28am
 
how do you feel right now? - miamizsun - Dec 13, 2019 - 4:09am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - gtufano - Dec 12, 2019 - 11:38pm
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - VV - Dec 12, 2019 - 7:06pm
 
Religion - Red_Dragon - Dec 12, 2019 - 3:04pm
 
How Cold Is It? - miamizsun - Dec 12, 2019 - 2:37pm
 
Radio Paradise NFL Pick'em Group - Manbird - Dec 12, 2019 - 2:23pm
 
Message To Lucky - Proclivities - Dec 12, 2019 - 1:40pm
 
Democratic Party - westslope - Dec 12, 2019 - 12:28pm
 
Things that piss me off - Ohmsen - Dec 12, 2019 - 11:27am
 
Music Videos - Red_Dragon - Dec 12, 2019 - 10:47am
 
Counting with Pictures - ScottN - Dec 12, 2019 - 9:39am
 
Nice set Bill.... - ScopPics - Dec 12, 2019 - 8:29am
 
Remembering the Good Old Days - Proclivities - Dec 12, 2019 - 7:54am
 
Name My Band - Coaxial - Dec 12, 2019 - 7:05am
 
Strange & Cool Music - Proclivities - Dec 12, 2019 - 6:45am
 
Lyrics that strike a chord today... - Red_Dragon - Dec 12, 2019 - 5:08am
 
Books read recently - Egctheow - Dec 12, 2019 - 3:26am
 
Bernie Sanders 2016? - #feelthebern - R_P - Dec 11, 2019 - 10:54pm
 
Finland - westslope - Dec 11, 2019 - 9:57pm
 
Republican Party - kurtster - Dec 11, 2019 - 9:23pm
 
Economix - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Dec 11, 2019 - 9:11pm
 
Amazon Echo/Alexa stream not working - jarro - Dec 11, 2019 - 6:54pm
 
Radio Paradise - Coaxial - Dec 11, 2019 - 6:27pm
 
(Big) Media Watch - Red_Dragon - Dec 11, 2019 - 5:26pm
 
Annoying stuff. not things that piss you off, just annoyi... - Red_Dragon - Dec 11, 2019 - 3:47pm
 
Gotta Get Your Drink On - Antigone - Dec 11, 2019 - 1:54pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - ColdMiser - Dec 11, 2019 - 1:19pm
 
FLAC Streaming - geeteaare - Dec 11, 2019 - 10:36am
 
What Puts You In the Christmas Mood? - buddy - Dec 11, 2019 - 9:59am
 
Environment - R_P - Dec 11, 2019 - 9:55am
 
What are you listening to now? - westslope - Dec 11, 2019 - 9:46am
 
RP on a loop via Alexa on Sonos - BillG - Dec 11, 2019 - 9:06am
 
Photos you haven't taken of other people... - Proclivities - Dec 11, 2019 - 8:58am
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Dec 10, 2019 - 8:17pm
 
Health Care - R_P - Dec 10, 2019 - 4:16pm
 
RP forum post editing - westslope - Dec 10, 2019 - 1:53pm
 
Mars - Manbird - Dec 10, 2019 - 1:52pm
 
Afghanistan - westslope - Dec 10, 2019 - 1:48pm
 
Post your favorite 'You Tube' Videos Here - Manbird - Dec 10, 2019 - 1:29pm
 
Things for which you would sell ManBird's soul - Manbird - Dec 10, 2019 - 1:27pm
 
Critical Thought - miamizsun - Dec 10, 2019 - 8:34am
 
Evolution! - R_P - Dec 9, 2019 - 11:09pm
 
TV shows you watch - haresfur - Dec 9, 2019 - 3:15pm
 
This Just In - miamizsun - Dec 9, 2019 - 2:59pm
 
Tech & Science - miamizsun - Dec 9, 2019 - 2:57pm
 
What The Hell Buddy? - buddy - Dec 9, 2019 - 1:29pm
 
RP Windows Desktop Notification Applet - gvajda - Dec 9, 2019 - 7:43am
 
Graphs, Charts & Maps - ScottFromWyoming - Dec 8, 2019 - 6:13pm
 
Food - ScottFromWyoming - Dec 8, 2019 - 4:20pm
 
Winter time is here ! - miamizsun - Dec 8, 2019 - 8:20am
 
What Did You Do Today? - Red_Dragon - Dec 7, 2019 - 6:20pm
 
What are you reading now? - miamizsun - Dec 7, 2019 - 12:40pm
 
Climate Change - miamizsun - Dec 7, 2019 - 11:42am
 
RP App for Android - jarro - Dec 7, 2019 - 2:22am
 
FOUR WORDS - triskele - Dec 6, 2019 - 4:35pm
 
THREE WORDS - triskele - Dec 6, 2019 - 4:34pm
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Climate Change Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 84, 85, 86 ... 93, 94, 95  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: 543 miles west of Paradis,1491 miles eas
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: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 11:12am

 Coaxial wrote:


If it doesn't will you STFU?

 
Doubtful.

islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
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: 543 miles west of Paradis,1491 miles eas
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: A sunset in the desert
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: Seattle
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: Seattle
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 ... 84, 85, 86 ... 93, 94, 95  Next