speaker

Ah, the Americans then...

It's an ill wind that blows no good. Perfect storm? who do you think would benefit, hopefully not the liberals. You don't suppose Canadians have forgotten what that party is do you? The NDP? I don't think so. That leaves the Bloc and the Greens, and maybe a revived Reform. wow could be an actual changing of the guard.

jbg, good question, maybe we could start a thread.... here's another good question, how would they not control the market?

I suppose it would depend on how it was done. If we or the States were to go cold turkey there would probably be a lot of pain. As it stands now we do have the option of widening our marketing horizons. If the SPP and sequential Canadian governments have their way we won't. We will be part of the American Nightmare.

Canuck E Stan, your reference has some validity for sure. If the Gore stuff is going to be shown in schools, and I haven't seen it so can't comment on it's value as educational material, it should have a response from an opposing view as mentioned in the article: " A Washington-state school board now requires that any teacher showing the film must ensure a "credible, legitimate opposing view will be presented" as well." I'm sure the difficulty is in finding such a view. There are certainly a lot of good concerned citizens mentioned trying to do their best to get information about the threat of global warming before students and the public in general. When the primary opposition comes from the friends of science though, or the natural resources stewardship project, opposition tends to lose credibility. jbg, it looks from this link like Mr. Lomborg is a little over his depth in discussing this kind of issue with anyone. Why would someone who has evidently set himself up to carry a banner for the environment like Al Gore put himself at Lomborgs level? Nothing to gain.... http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bjorn_Lomborg

In hockey a team takes advantage of its opponents weaknesses and if they do it better than the other team and have some luck, they are said to have played the game well, and hopefully they win. If they bribe the refs so that the rules are interpreted differently for their benefit they weren't playing the game well at all. The oil companies have the largest political donations, lobbying efforts, legal and accounting staff, etc. all working to twist the rules for their profit. Combine that with the billions used in PR for consumers who also incidendally elect the politicians the oil companies are lobbying, and the monopolistic powers of the oil giants and I'd say the game analogy kind of drops off. Kind of in inverse ratio to their profits. Blame the governments and the politicians for being weak? sure I'm ok with that. but I don't think it goes far enough.

wilbur, there are differences between having a trading partner and having an integrated economy. the differences that come to mind first are having sovereignty and not., Of continuing to support the incredible misuse of our resources to our future cost or being a real friend to the USA by being able to manage those reources for a more hopeful future. Deep integration as promoted by SPP and like minded organizations has the flaw of removing local choice on economic, social, and environmental development. Certainly the US with it's purchasing power can opt to buy from other areas of the world. To the extent that is true we have the ability to market elsewhere as well. Instead of a free trade pact we should be working on a sustainable trading partnership with nations that are working in that direction.

canuck e stan this should give you a clear idea of where governments are going with this based on what their science academies are working on. http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/document.asp?tip=0&id=6634 and this is probably an update for you on the friends of science. http://www.desmogblog.com/discredited-frie...ardship-project Perhaps if those scientists who were being rejected when trying to have their work published did better work they would find more acceptance.

I think groups like the Security and Prosperity club and the Centre for Strategic etc. are missing out on hearing about the things that matter in circles beyond the little clique of business advisors that have latched on to them. Jobs, quality of produce, a touch of common sense. Mostly though just to hear some opposition to what they are planning for our future. When groups like that don't hear the objections, and they try their best not to hear it, their plans have to screw up big time just because they don't have all the factors included. Garbage in, garbage out.

Personally I think what is needed is items that reflect the true costs of production. We can buy stuff from China cheaper at least in part because the societal costs aren't included in what we are paying for. China is paying through high environmental costs, and virtual slave labour in some sectors of their economy. Additionally we are paying for the transportation of goods to North Am in the form of a future bill for oil and gas depletion, and it's contribution to the cost of global warming. We should be producing and buying as much as we can locally not from some sort of nationalistic financial imperative, although that's part of it, but from an urgency derived from concern for our planet and out future.

A modeller definitely has to put in the data the system will use to come up with an answer, The better data the better the answer. What makes you think the scientists also tell the computer what results to look for? This is a case where climatologists believe that they have inputted better information and as a result have come up with a refutation of what they believed earlier. More power to them. I hope for Europes sake that they are right. It may mean that global warming is more severe than previously thought, and it may already be too late for the balancing effect of a colder north Atlantic.

Thanks for the primer jbg. We should start a whole thread dedicated to the workings of private enterprise. For example private enterprise in the form of oil companies, doesn't do anything, anywhere in this world unless there is significant investment by the local and national governments. Either in tax write-offs, environmental write-offs, social write-offs, etc. If the US believed over the last fourty years that there was a serious risk other countries like Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Canada, etc would be able to make all those sales and the US would lose out on it's opportunities to develop it's own reserves it would have gone ahead and done so through such write-offs. You say I'm babbling,,,,,, lol. You think the mid-east is going to get it's act together anytime soon? Please show us the signs. Long term, the oil in the ground will now be worth more than the oil we burn, wastefully.

JerrySeinfeld, some years ago I had similar feelings when adressing general environment issues, looking back on it now I'm pretty sure the tactics I was seeing from the anti-environment crowd were more along the line of personal paranoia on my part.

JerySeinfeld, I don't think the Canadian Shield, which is about all of Canadas North that isn't farmed now is worth a lot as agricultural land. Given time , maybe those 800 years. As Michael points out distribution is going to be increasingly problematic given fossil fuel peaking, and our wasting of oil and gas. The solution may be that people will be coming to Canada as refugees in really large numbers and we may be stressed just feeding our own. noahbody, my impression is that Suzuki saying that the debate is over is simply a statement of fact. People read into anything any number of things as I'm sure you're aware from having posted on here.

noahbody, perhaps he meant it in the sense that the real debate is over, and all that's left is people trying to avoid their responsibilities, and or increase their profits, by trying to slow down public action to counter the problem. And that isn't debate, but rearguard action. B. Max and JerrySeinfeld I believe he does say that co2 is a driver of global warming. which is not contradictory to the findings that co2 Peaking was eight hundred years after a heating cycle began. There is no doubt that co2 is helping to cause global warming, if some other mechanism drives co2 increases after the earth starts to heat up then we could be really up the creek 800 years from today, if we don't do what we can with our own contribution now.

JerrySeinfeld, actually the original topic was laughably enough whether Suzuki is evil. Probably your interpretation of the discussion is a little less inflamatory. Suzuki probably is biased about the concerns surrounding global warming and the environment in general. I figure anyone who has taken the time to look at where we are has the same bias. Given that Suzuki has immersed himself in the problems we are causing ourselves like energy waste, species loss, green house gases, water shortages, etc. I can understand how he might want to see some action rather than empty rhetoric that we have been getting from government for the last thirty years. However I have not seen anything that indicates he is trying to stifle debate. Perhaps advance the debate would be a more appropriate description.

So what you are suggesting is that we should be preparing ourselves to do battle with the Americans? An interesting view, how would our resources be best spent?

jbg sometimes one learns more from actually having to go that extra mile. It wouldn't hurt. Dogma? what dogma. michael bluth, and that was meant to be argumentative? Brown industry lobbying is pervasive beyond redundancy, green industry lobbying is to the point and on the cheap in comparison.

Ok so let me make sure I understand this, The US cut back on their productive capacity because other nations were willing to, or at least did sell cheaper than the states could financially justify. Therefore keeping more oil in American sub-soil was better for the States, long-term? short-term? But the same would not hold true for Canada because well we don't understand that there is a long term. Just for example, extraction income from our oil would not be there when we elected to remove it because oil and gas are highly volatile substances and would probably evaporate before we thought to pull it out.

Well, needless to say... There is probably no end to the good works. I guess I was only reffering to the SPP connections though.

jbg, I posted a link to the Suzuki Foundation earlier. You won't find it difficult to find what you're interested in,,, if you are interested in it. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I was discussing his ideas. Did you think I was talking about yours? what a coincidence.

You do find funding info on their website. Right down to the names you mentioned. Like I mentioned companies like encana can see their way to supporting groups like the Suzuki foundation because they understand there is a benefit to seeing what's written on the subway walls. Whether they will actually learn from it is probably another matter but it's nice to know the Foundation is broadminded enough to give them the chance. Suzuki a pawn for the green industry.??? lolol geoffrey you are a card. one doesn't even have to contemplate the scale of the brown industries lobbying to understand how much of a card you are.

geoffry, why would it be more expensive in the long term for Canadians to keep more of our resources here for our long term use?

It would be unfortunate to limit debate in the forums on the SPP. I'm sure there will be really serious negative consequences arise out of these secret meetings that our governments have been committed to for the last few years. If it's any consolation I expect it will be more a result of their incompetence and blinkered view of the world than the ill concieved notion of deeper integration of Canadas resources into American usage. Looking at the work being done by a group like the Centre for Strategic and International Studies on recognizing the impact of global warming, unrestrained growth and lousy resource conservation you can see there is something being missed. It's an opportunity to help our American brethren. CSIS recently did an analysis called Futures 2025. check it out.

The liberalsandconservatives abandon fiscal conservatism whenever it suits their need. They also follow or abandon whatever ideas or predjudices that come along so long as it fits their need. Not coincidentally they have managed to hold on to power for at least the last fourty years, perhaps that is their need. I think it's fair to say that Tommy Douglas was on the money with his black cats, white cats analogy. In reference to this discussion though, the current leader of the libcons really doesn't want things in the public until after it's law, eh? handcuffs...., just about as bad as the video of the old cop pepperspraying anti-globalization protesters in Vancouver. and so it goes, as Vonnegut would say.