Harper thinks terrorism is our "most serious challange"

[gerryhatrick]

Harper at the World Urban Forum in Vancouver:

"Of course, in our modern world, sadly, the most serious challenge of all is the threat of terrorism".

Anyone who follows current events knows that Global Warming is our most serious challange. And our most serious threat.

Harper is out of touch. Willfully, I suspect.

GO SEE "AN INVCONVENIENT TRUTH" IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY. IF YOU HAVE, GO SEE IT AGAIN.

Then you will be armed with the truth, and able to act with conviction to bring around the partisan deniers.

Release date information here:

http://www.climatecrisis.net/

[Leafless]

Harper at the World Urban Forum in Vancouver:

"Of course, in our modern world, sadly, the most serious challenge of all is the threat of terrorism".

Anyone who follows current events knows that Global Warming is our most serious challange. And our most serious threat.

Harper is out of touch. Willfully, I suspect.

Global warming and terrorism are both serious threats but are completley different.

One is associated with the enviroment and population growth and the other associated at the present time MAINLY to Islam, Muslims and their religious beliefs pertaining to acts of terrorism involving and including suicide bombers and associated spirtual rewards for their dastardly acts.

Of course Mr. harper is right at identifying the most SERIOUS and IMMEDIATE threat as terrorism as it has the ability to seriously disrupt world order which it already has done.

It also presents a very problamatic almost chaotic condition with countries who harbour Muslims due to their unpredictable nature concerning potential terrorist attacks or other forms of violence within that specific host country.

[Hicksey]

The environment certainly should be considered a pressing concern, but the most important? Hardly.

I agree that terrorism is a pressing concern, probably the most considering we've had 2 documented attempts at planning a major attack on our country in the last 3 years. Continued vigilance is essential to not letting the next happen either.

Personally I'd like to see serious tax reform on the agenda. I want law that requires the governments (federal, provincial, municipal) to pool their deficits/surpluses at the end of the budget year and only allow tax increases if there is a collective deficit. The federal government should not be allowed to run a surplus while the provinces run deficits and continue to raise taxes and run up debt. The opposite should be law too. Should there ever come a time where the provinces were running surpluses and the federal government were running a deficit, deficits/surpluses should be pooled likewise and tax increases allowed if there was a collective deficit. In either case any surpluses would be required to be applied to our national debt.

I'd also like to see wait times tackled with some meaningful solution. No patient should have to wait for any procedure for more than 6 months. People are dying line for life saving surgeries and that is just wrong.

[betsy]

Terrorism not only kill innocent lives. Its aim is to destabilize its target government, and wreak economic problems.

We've seen how airlines suffer right after the 9/11. Countries depending on tourism paid the price as well.

Terrorism and Environmental problems (which could possibly be not man-made at all) - both have sweeping wide effects. Terrorism's effect, however is more immediate....and causes a far more devastating ripple effect.

[gerryhatrick]

1, 2, 3 people who don't recognize what's happening in the world.

By far the most serious threat is Global Warming. Terrorism is a speck compared to it.

If half of the Greenland ice shelf, which is exhibiting the same symptoms as the Larson B ice shelf did (remember that one?), were to disintegrate it would raise sea levels by 20 feet.

Anyone who thinks terrorism outweighs that is kidding themselves.

Already Global Warming is killing far more people than terrorism ever has.

I appreciate that Harper has to address security and make sure our agencies are vigilant, but his ongoing dialogue and focus should be on Global Warming. CSIS and the RCMP and the rest of law enforcement are hard at work protecting us as best they can, if our PM chooses to make terrorism rather than the FAR greater threat of Global Warming his public focus then the only conclusion is that he's decided that dialogue will generate more votes. I think he's wrong on all counts.

[MightyAC]

I personally don’t think that terrorism is our most pressing concern but fear is great way to manipulate the people. Our current federal government would love it if we lived in fear of terrorist attacks. It makes it much easier to sell military expansion while simultaneously slashing all spending on environmental protection.

I’m not saying that our military does not need more funding but the idea that a government should focus on 5 priorities and forget about all other areas is ludicrous. Whoever decided that cancelling EnerGuide and completely ignoring the Kyoto accord was a good idea should be forced to spend a week visiting the many thousands of people who can’t breathe and will die prematurely do to our poor air quality. Oh well they are probably right people should probably be forced to stay indoors, in ventilated rooms after the age of 65 anyway. Also, has anyone else noticed the increase in kids with asthma, allergies and skin problems? That couldn’t have anything to do with increase in toxic irritants we are in contact with could it?

I understand that governments have to deal with many issues simultaneously and it’s not easy but continuously treating the environment as an afterthought is utterly stupid.

[Leafless]

I personally don’t think that terrorism is our most pressing concern but fear is great way to manipulate the people. Our current federal government would love it if we lived in fear of terrorist attacks. It makes it much easier to sell military expansion while simultaneously slashing all spending on environmental protection.

I’m not saying that our military does not need more funding but the idea that a government should focus on 5 priorities and forget about all other areas is ludicrous. Whoever decided that cancelling EnerGuide and completely ignoring the Kyoto accord was a good idea should be forced to spend a week visiting the many thousands of people who can’t breathe and will die prematurely do to our poor air quality. Oh well they are probably right people should probably be forced to stay indoors, in ventilated rooms after the age of 65 anyway. Also, has anyone else noticed the increase in kids with asthma, allergies and skin problems? That couldn’t have anything to do with increase in toxic irritants we are in contact with could it?

I understand that governments have to deal with many issues simultaneously and it’s not easy but continuously treating the environment as an afterthought is utterly stupid.

Well, I noticed that you nor 'gerryhattrick' offered not ONE suggestion on how a government would go about CORRECTING the enviroment.

There are many forms of pollution but the main one I think that worries you is the 'greenhouse effect' with water vapour being the main greenhouse gas increases with population.

Ever consider how much heat is given off on a hot day by thousands of vehicles idling in 'parking lot conditions' on the main motorways including hybrids and trapped in the lower atmosphere and heated even further by the sun's rays.

Ever consider what would happen if you removed ONLY HALF the vehicles on the road to-day?

You would almost immediately encounter mass unemployment from thousands of lost jobs related to the automotive industry and you don't need any statistics telling you what this would do to the economy.

There are many other forms of pollution that are extremely problamatic also but also some being controversial concerning playing havoc on world wide weather.

According to some scientist even if current levels of pollution were maintained at the present level temperatures would continue to rise for DECADES as the damage (ozone layer) is already done.

So let's hear it.

What would you do if you were prime minister in the way of implementing some sorts of enviromental controls???

[MightyAC]

Well, I noticed that you nor 'gerryhattrick' offered not ONE suggestion on how a government would go about CORRECTING the enviroment.

So let's hear it.

What would you do if you were prime minister in the way of implementing some sorts of enviromental controls???

Here are some ideas. Tax penalties on gas guzzlling vehicles and tax breaks on fuel efficient and ULEV vehicles. Financial incentives for fuel companies to offer E85 ethanol at their stations. Reinstate EnerGuide and rejoin Kyoto. Create legislation forcing all appliances to meet minimum efficiency standards, like what has been done in California. Adopt California emmisions standards in Canada. Provide low interest loans to people who will buy efficient furnances, appliances, windows, geo-thermal heating and cooling systems, etc. Increased transit funding. Stop subsidizing old industry and rich industry like the oil sector. For example the two billion we give to the Canadian oil sector could be spent on any number of environmental projects. We can add strings to auto sector subsidies like the vehicles produced must be flex fuel vehicles, ULEV vehicles, hybrids, etc.

Ever consider how much heat is given off on a hot day by thousands of vehicles idling in 'parking lot conditions' on the main motorways including hybrids and trapped in the lower atmosphere and heated even further by the sun's rays.

Hybrids don't actually idle, they shut off.

Ever consider what would happen if you removed ONLY HALF the vehicles on the road to-day?

You would almost immediately encounter mass unemployment from thousands of lost jobs related to the automotive industry and you don't need any statistics telling you what this would do to the economy.

The economy is always in transition. Those damn automobiles drastically decreased the number of black smiths and wagon makers. Also, vehicles aren't going anywhere. They are slowly evolving towards zero emission vehicles but they will still be made and sold. Also, as we increase the number of trains and busses in use more workers are required to build them, drive them and maintain them.

[Hicksey]

How about we just start making the environmentally friendly solutions the cheaper of all solutions? Instead of taxing everything, exempt environmentally friendly purchases (ie. vehicles of a minimum efficiency, high efficiency appliances/furnaces, etc ...) from taxation and tax the rest double to make up for it.

Instead the solutions that are best are usually the more expensive and we are continually being "guilt tripped" into buying things we can't afford. Why not set society up to succeed at saving the environment instead?

It just makes more sense. And it could be applied in many other ways. Can you imagine if we applied that to foods? How many less heart attack victims would be rushed into emergency rooms across the country? Why is it cheaper for me to eat fast food than to eat well? If, as a society, we were really concerned about changing our eating habits it should be the other way around.

In reality our decisions are usually made based on our budgets. If we had to eat well to stay in budget, wouldn't we be encouraging a problem to fix itself?

In a free society we can't just forbid everything. But we can make the choices that are good for the environment and our health the ones the average joe would make based on their budget -- the main decision maker for the average joe. If we couldn't afford to do things that were bad for the environment or our bodies a lot less people would be doing them in my estimation.

[MightyAC]

I'm a big supporter of using the tax system to shape ecological behaviour however I think the idea of a fat tax is drastically different.

Destroying the environment affects all life on the planet eating too many burgers only affects the individual...yes I am aware we all pay for the health system. Plus, there are so many additional variables with food. Should fit people pay the tax when they buy a burger? Should there only be tax on a grilled chicken sandwhich if the customer opts for cheese and condiments? Should a cashier at the grocery store ask the client if they plan to deep fry the chicken in their cart before they decide on the final price?

I've got it we should use the transportation industry model and put weigh scales at the enterances of all buildings that sell food. As people walk in it could calculate their body mass index and the appropriate tax would be applied to their purchases.

Fat taxes are a bad idea. Education and some time will shape our attitudes towards activity.

PhysEd is already being returned to the school system which seems like a positive step to me. Maybe we should add monthly nutritional information sessions into the school system. We can encourage the kids to put pressure on their parents. The same tactic was used when I was a kid to change our parents attitudes towards recycling back when the blue box program was a brand new thing.

[Leafless]

Well, I noticed that you nor 'gerryhattrick' offered not ONE suggestion on how a government would go about CORRECTING the enviroment.

So let's hear it.

What would you do if you were prime minister in the way of implementing some sorts of enviromental controls???

Here are some ideas. Tax penalties on gas guzzlling vehicles and tax breaks on fuel efficient and ULEV vehicles. Financial incentives for fuel companies to offer E85 ethanol at their stations. Reinstate EnerGuide and rejoin Kyoto. Create legislation forcing all appliances to meet minimum efficiency standards, like what has been done in California. Adopt California emmisions standards in Canada. Provide low interest loans to people who will buy efficient furnances, appliances, windows, geo-thermal heating and cooling systems, etc. Increased transit funding. Stop subsidizing old industry and rich industry like the oil sector. For example the two billion we give to the Canadian oil sector could be spent on any number of environmental projects. We can add strings to auto sector subsidies like the vehicles produced must be flex fuel vehicles, ULEV vehicles, hybrids, etc.

Ever consider how much heat is given off on a hot day by thousands of vehicles idling in 'parking lot conditions' on the main motorways including hybrids and trapped in the lower atmosphere and heated even further by the sun's rays.

Hybrids don't actually idle, they shut off.

Ever consider what would happen if you removed ONLY HALF the vehicles on the road to-day?

You would almost immediately encounter mass unemployment from thousands of lost jobs related to the automotive industry and you don't need any statistics telling you what this would do to the economy.

The economy is always in transition. Those damn automobiles drastically decreased the number of black smiths and wagon makers. Also, vehicles aren't going anywhere. They are slowly evolving towards zero emission vehicles but they will still be made and sold. Also, as we increase the number of trains and busses in use more workers are required to build them, drive them and maintain them.

Tax penalities on gas guzzling vehicles means less revenues for federal and provincial governments and that means less services.

E85 ethanol is expensive to produce and could easily take one gallon of petroleum to produce that one gallon of ethanol which BTW in Canada is NOT to my knowledge adjusted for volume which means you don't drive as far with one gallon of ethanol compared to one gallon of gasoline since it produces less BTU's.

Creating legislation to manufacture energy saving appliances results in only minimul savings like turning down your thermostat 10 degrees saves you about 5% on your total heating bill.

We don't need California emmission standards because their is hardly any place in Canada where pollution creates the same HEALTH risk as in cities in congested Calaifornia, we don't have 36 million people in any one province like what California has.

We have to continue to subsidize the oil industry as it not only creates jobs and wealth but there is virtually no replacement at present to replace the oil industry.

IMO there is only one way to reduce pollution and that is CONSERVATION by utilizing solar energy which includes wind power, hydro power and biomass generators with conservation with our fossil fuels (petroleum and coal).

Even hydrogen cars produce not so friendly tons of water vapour that troublesome greenhouse gas and takes an equivlent amount of energy to produce that hydrogen.

So until countries can establish a line of practiable defense relating to enviromental polluton it appears TERRORISM outweighs GLOBAL WARMING as our most serious threat.

[geoffrey]

No one has died of global warming, lots of died because of terrorism.

Global warming is a farce from the green energy lobby groups. For it, we will all be dying of cancer and asthsma, you can thank Suzuki. Instead of spending our enviro bucks on real issues like carcinogens and asthsma causing pollution, we send it to China. Do people not realise that the biggest producer of green house gases is forest fires and volcanic eruptions? That is, of course, ignoring that 99% of green house gases are water vapour.

So tell me what the real threat is. I agree, terrorism shouldn't be our first priority, but one among many. Our biggest threat is when each and every Canadian is dying from cancer because our government instead decided to send our money to China instead of easily fixing many of the carcinogens in our environment. CO2 isn't at all related to cancer or asthma, in fact.

[uOttawaMan]

No money is being put into cancer prevention.

It's all in curing cancer once it develops.

Not that I blame companies, no money to be made from preventing cancer.

[geoffrey]

Right uOttawa, it's market failure at the finest. This is where government needs to regulate toxins that cause Cancer, it's common sense to me anyways. Instead, we spend this valuable money cutting a harmless gas in another attempt at a NEP.

How's the army thing going anyways?

[BubberMiley]

SO long as we're voting on top priorities, the rapid economic decline that will come after we reach peak oil spooks me the most.

[MightyAC]

Tax penalities on gas guzzling vehicles means less revenues for federal and provincial governments and that means less services.

That is one hell of stretch. People will still buy vehicles and the government will still collect plenty of tax revenue. Increased gas guzzler taxes and rising fuel prices will just help to encourage people to buy more eco friendly vehicles.

E85 ethanol is expensive to produce and could easily take one gallon of petroleum to produce that one gallon of ethanol which BTW in Canada is NOT to my knowledge adjusted for volume which means you don't drive as far with one gallon of ethanol compared to one gallon of gasoline since it produces less BTU's.

Ethanol is currently expensive to produce relative to gasoline because of the low volumes produced. It will become cheaper relative to gas as oil prices rise. Providing financial incentives to produce and sell it will just make it available sooner. Since ethanol produces fewer greenhouse gas and particulate emissions than gasoline and hundreds of thousands of flex fuel vehicles already exist it makes sense to speed the process along. Also the vegetation grown to produce ethanol is a greenhouse gas sink, using up tonnes of CO2 while also producing oxygen.

Creating legislation to manufacture energy saving appliances results in only minimul savings like turning down your thermostat 10 degrees saves you about 5% on your total heating bill.

That is just plain BS. The difference between the most efficient and least efficient major appliances of all types is astounding. Legislation providing minimum standards for appliances already exists in California and has lead to signigicant power savings.

Also EnerGuide labels make it very easy for consumers to compare appliances based on their energy usage. The Conservatives have unfortunately cancelled this program in order to pay for the "5 priorities". This program should be reinstated immediately.

We don't need California emmission standards because their is hardly any place in Canada where pollution creates the same HEALTH risk as in cities in congested Calaifornia, we don't have 36 million people in any one province like what California has.

Really? So we should wait until we hit rock bottom before we tackle the problem. Do you wait until you completely run out of gas before you fill up?

All vehicle manufacturers already have to meet California's rigorous emission standards to sell them in that state. Since the standards exist and are being met in a massive market it would be simple to institute them here.

We have to continue to subsidize the oil industry as it not only creates jobs and wealth but there is virtually no replacement at present to replace the oil industry.

The Canadian oil sector is immensely profitable and self sustaining, which makes it one of the worst possible industries to hand cash to. They simply don't need the money. It was a much different case in the 80's when it was too expensive to extract oil from the sand but the times have changed. That money should be used in other areas.

IMO there is only one way to reduce pollution and that is CONSERVATION by utilizing solar energy which includes wind power, hydro power and biomass generators with conservation with our fossil fuels (petroleum and coal).

Conservation and reduction is the answer. That's why most of my ideas are designed to reduce fuel, energy and water use.

So until countries can establish a line of practiable defense relating to enviromental polluton it appears TERRORISM outweighs GLOBAL WARMING as our most serious threat.

Countries can "establish a line of practi[cal] defense" against pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. There are loads of existing ideas and strategies that will make a difference they just have to be implemented. Our current federal government is not only doing nothing about the environment they are actually going backwards.

[Hicksey]

Ethanol is currently expensive to produce relative to gasoline because of the low volumes produced. It will become cheaper relative to gas as oil prices rise. Providing financial incentives to produce and sell it will just make it available sooner. Since ethanol produces fewer greenhouse gas and particulate emissions than gasoline and hundreds of thousands of flex fuel vehicles already exist it makes sense to speed the process along. Also the vegetation grown to produce ethanol is a greenhouse gas sink, using up tonnes of CO2 while also producing oxygen.

The major argument against ethanol is that the production process uses as much energy as the ethanol does when burnt. And that's not to mention that it is about 40% less efficient than gasoline when burnt. So that means we'll be fueling up more often than we are now. How does that help the environment? The inefficiency of ethanol all but wipes out the environmental benefits because you have to burn 40% more of it to do the same amount of work as the fuel we're using now. Ethanol is not the answer. But it does have a good side effect, because the demand and price for corn will skyrocket and we will almost single handedly solve our problems within in the farming community.

Diesel is a better answer if you ask me. The 2007 emissions standards that severely reduce the Nitrous Oxides and Particulate matter will make diesels as clean as current ULEV vehicles (per litre of exhaust emitted) and they are about 25% more efficient. But we should take it one step farther (this will also help farmers) and mandate biodiesel. Some states have mandated percentages and it seems to be working just fine. Not only will biodiesel help replace the lubricating qualities removed with the sulphur, but it burns about 5-10% more efficient than petrodiesel, and still cleaner yet.

[MightyAC]

The major argument against ethanol is that the production process uses as much energy as the ethanol does when burnt. And that's not to mention that it is about 40% less efficient than gasoline when burnt.

So that means we'll be fueling up more often than we are now. How does that help the environment?

Pre 2002 flex fuel vehicles (FFV) are on average 30% less efficient than gasoline vehicles. Post 2003 vehicles are on average 15% - 17% less efficient. Some new concept vehicles are getting better fuel economy on ethanol than gasoline due to higher compression ratio engines. But you are mostly right in that FFVs running on E85 use more fuel when they burn E85 than they do when burning gasoline.

However on a per mile basis vehicles burning E85 still cost less than gasoline, produce fewer greenhouse gasses and reduce petroleum usage. The numbers below are taken from the Wikipedia article on E85 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E85)

On a per mile driven basis, using 1999 technology, dry milling process derived E85, reduced petroleum usage by 74.9%, GHG emissions by 18.8%, and total fossil energy consumed by 35%. Wet milling derived E85 with 1999 technology would net reductions of 72.5% in petroleum usage, 13.7% in GHG emissions, and 34.4% in fossil energy used.

Using current state of the art (circa 2005) these reductions in GHG and energy usage improve slightly. Dry mill current technology reducing petroleum usage by 75.6%, GHG emissions by 25.5% and fossil energy use by 40.7%. Wet mill current technology reducing petroleum usage by 73.7%, GHG by 23.8% and fossil energy by 42.5%.

Using cellulose based processes, the reductions in petroleum, GHG and fossil energy are expected to reach the following levels in a mature production environment. Cellulose based ethanol production is nearing commercial viability at this time (2006). Herbacious biomass process (near future technology) petroleum usage reduction of 71.4%, GHG emissions 67.6% and fossil energy 70.4%

Cellulose ethanol is an exciting technology as it does not require actual corn to produce ethanol. The waste cellulose from any crop is used instead. So farmers may be able to sell their corn as a food crop and the waste stalks, husks, etc. to ethanol producers. In general 8.75 US gallons per acre of gas are required to produce a crop some argue that it takes as much energy to produce ethanol as is gained in the fuel. Cellulose ethanol negates that since the food crop has to be grown anyway and the waste becomes the basis of the fuel. The Canadian company Iogen is a leader in this field.

Also there are hundreds of thousands of flex fuel vehicles that can use gas or ethanol already on the streets right now. Most people don't know even know they are driving a FFV. From what I understand most domestic trucks are already FFVs as a way for the big 3 to meet emissions standards without actually meeting them.

I am also in favour of bio-diesel the only drawbacks I see right now is that it is generally only available in E5 to E20 form which means the fuel is still primarily petro-diesel. From what I understand they still haven't solved the fact that bio-diesel concentrations above 20% solidify at cooler temperatures....and in Canada we experience cooler temps. However, I'm sure they'll continue to improve bio-diesel and the more we reduce the petro portion of any fuel the better.

[Leafless]

MightyAC

Unless you can provide links to proof what your talking about is true you have no buisness calling other peoples statements BS.

What happens when you read articles is you don't get all the facts but information that are freindly with the article in question by it's own author.

For instance an energy efficient refridgerator might at first glance appear to save hydro until you discover the compressors electric motor is running at twice the RPM of a less effecient refrigeration compressor producing what seems to be a higher degree of efficiency.

But the draw back is the capacity to cool quickly simply is not there and it takes twice as long to cool the contents of the refrigerator.

Savings , there might be some if your fridge is practically empty most of the time but full of food no and your compressor almost never shuts down.

Ethanol is not as cost efficient as you might think relating to both cost and pollution and all the free area in North America will not be able to supply anywhere near the demand.

Here are some actual fiqures:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byfueltype.htm

Also bio-diesel stinks and as you congeals at lower temperatures which is the pure nature of the stuff making it unsuitable in Canada.

You also mentioned hybrids shut off when in conditons like stalled traffic.

Thta's only providing you have ample battery amps to drive the electric motor otherwise the main fuel motor runs like any other fossil fuel vehicle.

I would just like to say to you that there is NOTHING in the market to-day that will make a significant dent in major fuel savings or elminating pollution without costing an excess amount of dollars as compared to the savings you might like to recover from your expenditure.

My idea of conservation for starters would be for instance to limit a single vehicle per household and never mind all the fancy gimmics that only help buisness and not the enviroment.

[gc1765]

Some issues that are more important than terrorism in Canada (not that I have the solution to all of these, but then again I don't have the solution to terrorism either):

Cancer, AIDS, Drug-resistant bacteria and other diseases...

Health Care

Poverty

Affordable Education

The economy

These are just a few off the top of my head, I'm sure there's more.

[Kindred]

If poverty is considered terrorism than I vote for terrorism, the biggest issue in Canada, the US and most of the world IMO is the millions and millions of children living in poverty. 1.5 million in Canada alone who dont have adequate housing, clothing or food. Over 5 million men, women and children in Canada living in extreme poverty.

Poverty is the issue, poverty breeds hate and breeds wars - poverty and greed are the biggest threat to the world. IMO

[gc1765]

If poverty is considered terrorism than I vote for terrorism, the biggest issue in Canada, the US and most of the world IMO is the millions and millions of children living in poverty. 1.5 million in Canada alone who dont have adequate housing, clothing or food. Over 5 million men, women and children in Canada living in extreme poverty.

Poverty is the issue, poverty breeds hate and breeds wars - poverty and greed are the biggest threat to the world. IMO

Well said.

"Instead of war on poverty they got a war on drugs so the police can bother me" - Tupac Shakur

[MightyAC]

What happens when you read articles is you don't get all the facts but information that are freindly with the article in question by it's own author.

For instance an energy efficient refridgerator might at first glance appear to save hydro until you discover the compressors electric motor is running at twice the RPM of a less effecient refrigeration compressor producing what seems to be a higher degree of efficiency.

But the draw back is the capacity to cool quickly simply is not there and it takes twice as long to cool the contents of the refrigerator.

Savings , there might be some if your fridge is practically empty most of the time but full of food no and your compressor almost never shuts down.

One degree of temperature change is one degree of temperature change whether a refrigerator is full or empty. EnerGuide labels list the actual electricity used by each appliance and rates that usage against other comparable appliances. Whether a fridge has a compressor that runs at a high or low level of RPM is of no consequence as the actual electricity used is what is tracked and rated. The problem is that the difference between the most efficient and least efficient appliances is massive. California has a law in place that sets a mandatory minimum level of efficiency. The law forces appliances to be more efficient and reduces energy usage. In Canada we HAD EnerGuide so that consumers could at least directly compare the energy usage of appliances but the least efficient appliances are still available....and now the Conservatives have cancelled EnerGuide so soon we won't even have an easy direct comparison. This idea has already been proven to work in California and should be used here as well.

Ethanol is not as cost efficient as you might think relating to both cost and pollution and all the free area in North America will not be able to supply anywhere near the demand.

Here are some actual fiqures:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byfueltype.htm

Based on the site you listed the average flex fuel vehicle is cheaper to run on E85 and produces 2 tons fewer greenhouse gasses than the same vehicle burning gasoline. I really don’t understand your objection.

Unless you can provide links to proof what your talking about is true you have no buisness calling other peoples statements BS.

What happens when you read articles is you don't get all the facts but information that are freindly with the article in question by it's own author.

I quoted numbers from a Wikipedia article and provided the link. Here is the link again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E85

Also bio-diesel stinks and as you congeals at lower temperatures which is the pure nature of the stuff making it unsuitable in Canada.

Yeah gasoline exhaust smells great… Bio-diesel exhaust has a slight french-fry fragrance, which smells much better in my opinion.

E100 bio-diesel will solidify at 4 degrees Celsius, however E100 isn’t used. E20 is typically the max used and it has no solidification problems. I recommend that you also check out the Wikipedia bio-diesel article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel

You also mentioned hybrids shut off when in conditons like stalled traffic.

Thta's only providing you have ample battery amps to drive the electric motor otherwise the main fuel motor runs like any other fossil fuel vehicle.

The battery constantly recharges when the gasoline engine runs and when hybrids brake. It is rare that the battery ever completely runs out of juice but even if it does the gas engine is much smaller than a standard gas engine so it uses much less gas.

I would just like to say to you that there is NOTHING in the market to-day that will make a significant dent in major fuel savings or elminating pollution without costing an excess amount of dollars as compared to the savings you might like to recover from your expenditure.

Both E85 ethanol and bio-diesel cost less and produce far less pollution than gas. Standard diesel engines burn E5 to E20 bio-diesel and hundreds of thousands of flex fuel vehicles that burn gas or E85 ethanol already exist, so the cost of implementing these technologies is minimal. Ethanol, bio-diesel, hybrids and increased transit usage can drastically reduce fossil fuel usage and greenhouse gas emissions.

My idea of conservation for starters would be for instance to limit a single vehicle per household and never mind all the fancy gimmics that only help buisness and not the enviroment.

You’re obviously out of touch with reality.

[GostHacked]

If poverty is considered terrorism than I vote for terrorism, the biggest issue in Canada, the US and most of the world IMO is the millions and millions of children living in poverty. 1.5 million in Canada alone who dont have adequate housing, clothing or food. Over 5 million men, women and children in Canada living in extreme poverty.

Poverty is the issue, poverty breeds hate and breeds wars - poverty and greed are the biggest threat to the world. IMO

Well said.

"Instead of war on poverty they got a war on drugs so the police can bother me" - Tupac Shakur

I really don't think that lumping poverty with terrorism is a good idea. Yes poverty adn greed are major problems but linking it and lumping it with terrorism?

Some issues that are more important than terrorism in Canada (not that I have the solution to all of these, but then again I don't have the solution to terrorism either):

Cancer, AIDS, Drug-resistant bacteria and other diseases...

Health Care

Poverty

Affordable Education

The economy

These are just a few off the top of my head, I'm sure there's more.

Your list matches mine. These are the more critical issues. If we do not have decent health care, when a terrorist strike happens we are screwed.

And since the politicians say that terrorism is our greatest threat, would it not make sense to make sure all the after plans are in place? Emergency response, controlling the area, helping people ect. Prevention will help alot, but also being prepared for the aftermath is just as good. So make sure the health care is in place, make sure it is affordable.

Terrorism wants to destroy our way of life (or so that is what is beaten into our skulls.) so what better way to counter that terrorism by making our way of like strong and secure in our area. Get the economy rolling, deal with the poverty problem, healthcare ect. Because as of this moment, if an attack happens and we are not prepared. then they win.

Deal with all the other issues and terrorism will go away. Plain and simple. And don't come back at me saying THEY HATE FREEDOM, this does not work anymore, people are smarter than that.

[gc1765]

I really don't think that lumping poverty with terrorism is a good idea. Yes poverty adn greed are major problems but linking it and lumping it with terrorism?

I don't think anyone was lumping poverty with terroism, at least that wasn't my intention. I thought the purpose of the post I was agreeing with was to say that poverty is a bigger issue than terrorism, but maybe I misinterpreted it.

And since the politicians say that terrorism is our greatest threat, would it not make sense to make sure all the after plans are in place? Emergency response, controlling the area, helping people ect. Prevention will help alot, but also being prepared for the aftermath is just as good. So make sure the health care is in place, make sure it is affordable.

Good point, I never thought of this.