speaker

I was following the jbg post which had for a last line, The feds do not have the right to insist on the election of non-imbeciles to the governorships and key mayoral positions. So it seemed to follow, for me at least, that the they, refers to the feds,,,, the present situration as you put it, refers to the present when the feds don't have the right,,,, the them, is once again the feds,,,, the it, would be the right to insist on the election of non-imbeciles,,,, and the their, refers to the level at which the feds currently find themselves. I hope that clears it up.

That might be true on a southern commune......but not in Canada. That statement isn't 50% wrong or even 100% wrong....probably closer to 1000% wrong. M.Dancer, I believe you are wrong, What percentage of your lighting is solar energy? On a year round basis what percentage of your heat is solar? There are even times in northern Canada when it get's to be too much. In the solar sites I pasted, the design work helps to improve the overall usage of solar energy up to the point of absorbing the solar energy for release to the outside when cooling is needed. Part of the intent behind using solar energy in buildings is to minimize the need for additional energy, so conservation and efficiency standards are constantly being improved. This helps to make solar energy a larger part of a buildings total supply.

And they would probably reject the right if it ever came before any governing body because the present situation helps to make them look good and because if it ever caught on it just might reach their level.

mcqueen, I'd be interested in seeing this article, can you reference it or give a site for the article? It is my understanding that fuel prices of all sorts are considerably higher in Europe than here and have been for some time. Ie. as in even before the various governments made a committment to Kyoto. Since that is the case, presumably because of supply issues and taxation, the decision to ratify and achieve the Kyoto targets may be an insignificant percentage of the problem. There has been a lot of bs floating down the information highway about how costly it would be to meet our responsibilities. The right is always using doom and gloom and scare tactics to get people into opposing sustainability options. It isn't necessary to believe them.

You do realize, of course, that solar energy at its present stage of development can probably supply about 5% of this nation's energy needs once it gets ramped up with billions of dollars injected into it? And that wind energy, after decimating the bird population, might supply another 5%? That of course doesn't take into consideration all the dirty ooey icky energy it takes to make the actual impliments, but hey, it'll make the folks who put out $100,000 or so feel really spiffy about doing their part to combat a fabricated issue. ScottSA, I hope you will tell me what you understand to be solar energy, It is my impression that at present solar energy provides about a third of our residential energy. The references I suggested indicate technology that in my view should bring that up to two thirds, without any significant outlay of r and d money. If on the other hand if you haven't bothered to check out the sites I suggested and are coming out of the blue at this because you think I am talking about photovoltaics I still wouldn't see a problem with investing billions in the technology to improve efficiencies and reduce even further the minor impacts, compared to hydrocarbon consumption, in the environment of solar electricity. After all we are going to be investing billions to scrape up the last of the easy petroleums, improve our efficiencies there, and clean up the ensuing environmental problems of that industry. What difference does it make where we do that investing, other than once we do develop solar electric, we can quit investing if we are so inclined.

Courts are there to see that the rules of the land are obeyed, and to determine, in the interests of the country, the best course of action where there are conflicting views. There are occasions when this doesn't work. Like an American Senate, or a Canadian one for that matter, like an opposition party, or parties. Not one of them works all the time and none of them are perfect. If there are concerns about specific rulings of the courts the other option is to get together with like minded people and take it to the politicians and to the courts. On the other hand if people complain because the courts occasionally disagree with those peoples world views then this argument is simply being overdone to make a point. What's really wanted is government in MY image.

geoffrey, I'm really glad you took the time to examine the alternatives I posted last time. You are right of course there is no such thing as a clean alternative to todays ghgas, etc., emission prone energy guzzling lifestyle. Fortunately there are significantly CLEANER alternatives to todays etc., etc., So I thought you, having taken the time to look last time might like to have another gander, at these sites. http://www.retscreen.net/ang/g_passiv.php http://www.newenergy.org/sesci/publication...ts/passive.html http://www.canren.gc.ca/tech_appl/index.asp?CaId=5&PgId=303 It's good to meet someone who examines the issues before mouthing off with irrelevant red herrings. Now if we could only get some of the others to quit mouthing off who do so without thinking at all.

Hi guthrie, good sites, thanks. Here is one that gives some less expensive and handier alternatives to the Green House Gas Industry. I'm partial to these options because a lot of it can be done by anyone with some renovation or building skills. http://www.builditsolar.com/

I did.... talk about your conspiracy theories eh? That one stands as the definition.

Where do you think the investors would go? Given the reason behind this thread.

B Max the question I asked you was as follows, Even the Liberals???? Ok so I think that we have established that you don't vote for the party of the scandal, ok excuse me the party of the middle. So why would you believe what they are trying to tell you now? and it was in reference to your comments about Liberal studies showing harm to the economy from meeting Kyoto targets. With respect to your response that we are not running out of oil, what I said was that we are running out of affordable hydrocarbons. and with respect to your denial of man made global warming I can only say having given you the website for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change http://www.ipcc.ch/ I can only agree with the old saying that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

I'm thinking you've never seen wildflowers spreading across a meadow. There is nothing wrong with caring for the Earth and surprisingly there are some benefits. Economics, the management of the house, and ecology, the study of the house are related and interrelated. There will be downsides to reducing energy use. For example the energy companies may have to wait for their next set of billions, but if they were good enough to make the investment in small scale alternatives that can be done on a local site specific basis, I for one wouldn't begrudge them the huge money they are still going to get from their known reserves.

Martin Chriton, Fortunately there is a lot of technological fixes already ready. There is also a wide variety of options available that open up lifestyle change opportunity. I expect there will be more of each before we are done. Don't give up on Kyoto until we have actually tried. giving up on the short term plan just makes it easier to give up on the long term one. B Max maybe if you answered my question it would go a ways to helping me understand a bunch of stuff. Canuckistan, The opposition is ignoring the impact of reducing our emissions? It is more my impression that the liberals and the conservatives have done as Susuki states in your quote. They have done their best to ignore the damage that will happen to our economy as we run out of cheap hydrocarbons at the same time as we suffer the costs of global warming.

Nobody. Not Elizabeth May, not Al Gore, not David Suzuki is arguing that Canada can meet the Kyoto timeline without buying credits. Nobody. Perhaps not. After decades of governmental and corporate stalling I can't figure out why we can't do it now..... Oh yeah, we haven't tried yet. Well what do you say? the alternatives are there such as energy use rather than energy production being the measurement of a nations complicity.

B Max you said "If it could, it already would be." I don't think that follows. There are a variety of options that could be but aren't, in a variety of different fields, from health care to agricultural research, to space flight. And there are a variety of reasons why this is the case. In energy research, the price of CO2 reductions, corporate well being, and environmental well being, one of the main reasons is ignorance. encouraging ignorance by denying possibility doesn't help anyone in the long run. And it would help if there was co-operation rather than as Canuckistan says Opposition. Who is the opposition, Is there no reality beyond the conservative/ liberal dichotomy and their grab for political power? " QUOTE(Canuck E Stan @ Apr 21 2007, 06:00 PM) And how was the opposition going to achieve these immediate results starting in 2008 without the economy being effected drastically? It can't be done." And then you waged in with this. " It could be done tomorrow. The following day the revolution would begin. Which is the way I would prefer to see it unfold. Death by a thousand cuts is still death. No matter, everyone who has looked at has said it would destroy the economy, even the liberals had two committees look at it and said it couldn't be done without destroying the economy. " Even the Liberals???? Ok so I think that we have established that you don't vote for the party of the scandal, ok excuse me the party of the middle. So why would you believe what they are trying to tell you now? There is no more oil and gas being made. The burning of it is causing us serious environmental problems. That costs. It is doing serious economic damage to us. That costs. It is doing serious social damage. That costs. and there are alternatives. As in Canuckistans reference.... " QUOTE Last, there is the legal question. The clear expectation at Kyoto was that the greater part of the required reductions would take place domestically. While no specific percentage is mentioned, the Protocol speaks of a "significant element." The so-called "flexibility" mechanisms were intended to be "supplemental" to domestic action, not a replacement for it. So it would arguably violate at least the spirit of Kyoto to rely so heavily on purchases abroad. And since complying with Kyoto is the only reason we would be engaged in this mad dash to hit an arbitrary target by an artificial deadline, what exactly would we be accomplishing? " A lot of the reductions would be done here at home. If then we can't meet our targets we could help others reduce the environmental impacts. However the only reason we are in this mad dash might better be phrased "complying with Kyoto so as to reduce our heel print on the plant." Whether we are good enough to get where we should get may be debateable but to go whining into our environmental nightmare about the possibility of some minor economic and social changes is going to be seen as petty. I have seen studies that indicate that Energy Use doesn't exist as a direct correlation of economic development.

Ah, so now we've moved on to all the insects dying. Next we'll have to slide Global Warming in under the door just to make this complete. Virtually all the insecticides used are highly toxic to Bees, and essentially all other insects as well. There isn't such a thing as a selective insecticide. A fair number of the Herbicides are toxic to bees at least of those that mention relative toxicity. Some of the approved herbicides for example don't appear to have even looked at the question. It doesn't need to be GMOed crops that are causing the bee die-off, but when you consider that part of the plan of insect resistant GM crops is to build the toxicity directly into the plant so that farmers don't have to spray you've got to wonder how many insects like bees, that don't necessarily pollinate a particular crop, might keel over while simply picking up sap from damaged areas for the hive moisture. Sorry ScottSA, the only time global warming enters into this is when we are having a hard time feeding the populace because of it and we look around and say you know we'd be better off if we had the bees now.

BubberMiley thanks, I wonder if some of this isn't confusion with the well justified hysteria concerning the prospects of nuclear winter, which perhaps saved the world from experiments like pre-emptive nuclear war during the sixties and seventies.

I expect that you are fairly tall now so you might just venture in there and freewheel around for a while, you are the only one that can determine what you would believe as evidence of what the IPCC presents. However just to get started why don't you check this one out. http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/meeting/URW/produ...W_Report_v2.pdf

:<}

I looked but there is really nothing. A lot of assumptions and rhetoric and references to their bio diversity which includes agenda 21. didn't look far enough..

http://www.ipcc.ch/ please try and have a look... ?? BubberMiley, sorry my hookup and computer are too slow to watch videos, can you give an outline? thanks

Why would you measure a good from something like oil spills, and not measure the costs as a cost? I'm not trying to be rhetorical here. There is something fundamentally wrong with our economic mentality and it has to do with not recognizing the impact that we are having on ourselves from the negative effects of our actions. I like this Genuine Progress Index, GPI, because there appears to be recognition of this flaw. And in the case of this particular thread why not measure the cost of carbon emmissions and apply them to economic analysis. fellowtraveller, you are right of course. I think we should all announce that we are moving to Costa Rica. Arriba! Arriba! Actually we can reduce our impact through conservation, solar energy, (passive, active, and photovoltaic,) wind, geothermal, small hydro, tidal, wave energy, we don't need to be putting the carbon in the air like we do. The idea would be to have a net positive impact on carbon emmissions through alternative energies and sequestration, ie building up agricultural soils, planting trees, etc. I expect that if global warming continues the way it is projected by the IPCC we may have traffic jams on our way south as less fortunate people head in our direction.

I think the point here is that the pollution comes from the consumption of fossil fuels at the same time as carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, agricultural and industrial and municipal processes contribute the methanes along with other pollutants. The object would be to cut back on those carbon emmissions and the pollutant reductions would be a bonus.

Why would you measure a good from something like oil spills, and not measure the costs as a cost? I'm not trying to be rhetorical here. There is something fundamentally wrong with our economic mentality and it has to do with not recognizing the impact that we are having on ourselves from the negative effects of our actions. I like this Genuine Progress Index, GPI, because there appears to be recognition of this flaw.

I'd never heard of this, the Genuine Progress Indicator, Thank you Catchme. A comparison of benefit derived from investment in conservation that provides as much energy as drilling for oil, building pipelines across otherwise productive land, building ships to transport it and cleaning up the pollution caused by shipping error, burning the oil to produce power for some process, the pollution occuring because of it, and needless to say fighting wars over control of oil. GPI or GDP as measurement. Which one is more realistic in terms of economic/ecologic ,,,, ya I'd go with the GPI http://www.gpiatlantic.org/gpi.htm