quinton

Argus, show me one country that actually has a declining population. They're all growing: http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/ The Italian wolf is facing extinction. Italian people? They are increasing. Humans have taken way more than their share of the planet's resources in my opinion.

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/060520/w052050.html Is this guy crazy? He is talking as though Canada's low birth rate is bad and is resulting from the "pervasive effects of secularism". Doesn't he realize the earth's resources are finite? Thank "god" for secularism!

Colin Angus becomes first person to travel around the earth on human power (bike, foot, row-boat) http://www.expeditionplanetearth.com/index.html In June 2004 a team departed from Canada on what is undoubtedly the world’s most grueling race: To be the first to travel around the planet (land and ocean) entirely by human power. Three nations, Britain, the USA and Canada are attempting to be first in this quest. The team is using zero-emissions travel to highlight issues with global warming and to inspire others to use non-motorized transportation. Expedition Planet Earth is using non-motorized transportation to circumnavigate the earth. By travelling 42,000 km using only human power, the team hopes to promote awareness about global warming and demonstrate how effective human powered travel can be. "If we can propel ourselves around the world. Will you propel yourself to work or school?"

What a waste of thinking on an issue that has no relevance to the serious problems facing humankind on planet earth at present. How will the history of "Jesus" save us from climate change, habitat loss, desertification, overpopulation of humans, depletion of oil and natural gas, species extinctions, corporatization/globalization, Free Trade AKA "Forced Trade" where Canada (a cold climate) is forced to never reduce oil and natural gas exports to the USA, deforestation of Alberta's land to access the tarsands, etc? It won't. So stop wasting your energy thinking about this garbage.

The party will be over soon. We're already at or very close to having used up half of the world's oil. In your lifetime you'll have to give up your gas guzzler. Like the Atlantic Cod, there won't be a warning, it'll be gone before you have time to react.

August1991, yes outlawing ATVs, SUVs, and recreational gas hogs would be a great start. And throw in leaf-blowers, hedge trimmers, air conditioners also. But unless population growth is stopped, we cannot hope to stop resource depletion. Drea, ever heard of shorts or nylon splash pants? I get around without a car rather easily. I think $1/litre gas is ridiculously expensive and am amazed by how many people still drive cars. I'd rather buy a litre of milk than a litre of gas. I rode my bike 30 km today around the city and 35 km yesterday running errands. I will be riding a few thousand kms next week on a bicycle tour. Drea I think "they" want you to buy as big of vehicle as possible as opposed to a hybrid because that supports "economic growth" which is population growth times consumption growth (The goal of every government in the known world). The average car repair costs as much as a new bicycle. August1991, just because the tarsands in Alberta are profitable doesn't necessarily mean that they don't waste more energy producing the oil than what can be gotten out of it. It could be that they waste more BTUs of natural gas than the amount of BTUs that are in the end product oil simply because natural gas is cheaper than oil per energy unit. I know per energy unit natural gas is cheaper than electricity in most cities.

As long as people like you ride around SUVs, ATVs, motor boats etc for pleasure, as long as I see auto racing on TV, as long as professional sports exist, as long as people drive a car to work instead of ride a bicycle there, as long as the public complies with the government's plan for perpetual and deliberate population growth I will say: We want the oil, we don't "need" the oil. I wouldn't be surprised if that huge forest fire you are having in Alberta can somehow be attributed to the rampant deforestation of the land containing tarsands. Desertification lowers the water table and causes drought.

August1991, you are way off topic, but I guess you need a lesson in ecology. ecology 101 - everything is interrelated in an ecosystem. A city is an ecosystem which is heavily dominated by humans and has lost its natural integrity for supporting its original inhabitants: the native plants and animals that existed there for thousands of years before the first human walked the planet. Your example of a manicure or pedicure still harms the environment in the following ways: 1 - Driving the the beauty salon 2 - Doing trivial things means that you aren't producing your own food, so your food must be shipped to you 3 - Heating or cooling the beauty salon 4 - Using chemicals to paint nails 5 - Using disposable sanding devices for filing nails 6 - Producing garbage and waste that is not composted from nail work 7 - Having food shipped to the workers of the beauty salon 8 - The workers driving to the beauty salon etc, etc. Although it may or may not be as bad for the environment as using the same amount of money to detonate firecrackers, all economic activity is consumption that impacts ecosystems by further degrading them or altering them in anthropogenic ways. Yes, I advocate a humane reduction in human numbers. The balance of ecology would be far healthier with fewer people on earth. Further, I want to have more food options than just genetically modified corn. We are losing biodiversity and ocean fishes fast. We either need another war (only this time one that will kill off many millions) so that we can start our goal of economic growth all over again, or we need to stop our practice of economic growth (what I recommend) and promote a steady population, steady economy (no more interest rates and inflation) and sustainable consumption.

I heard Green Party leader candidate Elizabeth May interviewed this morning on CBC Radio's The Current. She downplayed the problem of overpopulation in Canada and how our present immigration practices are making it worse. She said the problem was only sprawl and wasteful overconsumption. Link May 17 episode. Anna Maria Tremonti started out by interviewing former member of the Sierra Club, Paul Watson live from Seattle who focussed on the envrionmental problem of population growth and its direct link to immigration. He quit the Sierra Club when a private donor paid $100 million in exchange for the Sierra Club being pro-immigration and not linking immigration to environmental degradation. He said that USA and Canada should limit immigration to support a steady population if they wanted to be able to preserve biodiversity. I agree, although I would advocate a reduced population. Then Anna Maria interviewed Elizabeth May and asked her what she thought of Paul Watson. She said the issue is too complex to "single out immigrants as toxic waste". She said the real problem was consumption. Paul Watson said the problem is population growth and consumption. Elizabeth May said it's only consumption. They both recognized that when immigrants come to Canada or USA, they consume more. Paul Watson also pointed out that immigrants have more children than Canadians or Americans born people. One thing is for sure after listening to that interview, I won't be voting for Elizabeth May. Too bad Paul Watson wasn't running for Green Party Leader of Canada. Paul Watson is telling things as they are instead of trying to avoid controversy and be politically correct like Elizabeth May.

The oil does not "need" to be extracted.

I agree that the fresh water usage for tarsand oil harvesting is a huge threat. Another is the deforestation to create the tarsands pits.

It is possible that the link I read is wrong. However, I haven't found any information that says there is a net gain of energy in Alberta's oil tarsand production either. It will be interesting to see what happens to all the people with natural gas furnaces in cities if natural gas runs out in 7 years like you say.

This seems to be the case. It is not hard to imagine how today's oil deposits waste more energy in the extraction process than can ever be recovered in the oil. For Alberta's tar sands we are wasting valuable natural gas to get the oil. We are throwing good money after bad since we waste 3 BTU of natural gas for every 1 BTU of oil that we get. Today's average oil user does so out of laziness. Making trips to malls, sporting events, a job that is not near home, etc. Further, many ridiculous practices continue like burning oil for sport (auto racing). I'm glad I don't spend $1/litre on gas anymore. I rely on my bicycle and bicycle trailer and I can bike across Canada and camp along the way easily if I want to.

Good summary of the cultural behaviour of a typical status-quo Canadian and unfortunately the majority of people who are members of this forum. Let me say that I pride myself in doing my own thinking. I am an open-minded critical thinker. I do not watch professional sports or anything on TV besides the News and I do not like the choice of stories that is covered by the News. I believe our society's collapse will be due to its goal of perpetual economic growth in a world of finite resources. This collapse is already happening. We have lost many species. We have lost many wild habitats. Habitat loss is a far bigger problem than climate change. Habitat loss is caused by human population growth. Our piece of the pie keeps getting smaller as resources per capita continues to decline. We are in a giant pyramid scheme whereby bringing in new immigrants is required for our money to grow. Our money will ultimately only be able to "buy" what the earth has left to offer. The most likely outcome to our goal of never-ending human growth is war and more war to control resources. We are in denial. The oil party will be over in a couple of decades. Instead of limiting our growth and looking for sustainability we hire politicians to keep the oil party going even though it takes more energy to harvest today's oil than is contained in that oil. There's my rant for the day.

http://dymaxionworld.blogspot.com/2006/05/...ithout-end.html Apparently, it takes more energy to extract oil from tar sands in Alberta than is contained in the oil that is produced, as much as 3x more. To get the oil out of the tar sands, they are using natural gas to cook it. But the energy of the oil that is produced is less than the energy of the natural gas that is used to produce it. At a time when everybody is worried about our finite supplies of fossil fuels running out, why they are wasting energy to extract oil from the tar sands? I guess it is economic to develop the tar sands as long as the price of energy in natural gas (in $/BTU) is cheaper than that in oil, but as natural gas supplies in N. America deplete (they are already half gone), it will eventually not be economic to produce oil from the tar sands (unless they switch to coal to cook the oil out of the sands). I guess for the petroleum industry, it's all about the money.

Calgary has less hours of sunshine per year than Estevan, SK and Medicine Hat, AB which has the most. It does have over 2400 hours per year which is a lot I have to admit.

Actually Calgary is overall warmer from May-September (very close though) as well as being warmer in the winter. Edmonton: http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/...ls=&StnId=1865& Calgary: http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/...ls=&StnId=2205&

betsy, how would you achieve a lowered birthrate? I would advocate all countries pay their citizens to become sterilized. (Not just Canada) I would also stop immigration (because allowing people to move from areas of high to low concentration would allow us to use up all of the wilderness) Countries with wilderness left should protect it by not allowing it to be plundered for building materials to support the next wave of immigrants. betsy, Global Warming is very benign compared to the loss of wilderness caused by road building and other population pressures. Species extinctions caused by lack of roadless areas is far worse than global warming. If every country has the same philosophy as a religious cult to expand their own numbers to create the largest army of their own kind, the world's biodiversity and endangered species are doomed.

Good points Renegade. Geoffrey think twice before making such extreme statements. I believe the human population should be reduced in the most humane way possible. This is by lowering the birth rate, not by killing or shortening the lives of the living.

1) Get the public aware of the problem and debating solutions. I vote for government to pay people to sterilize themselves. That won't work until the majority of the public is on board and recognizes that this is the biggest problem in the world.

Overpopulation.

Sure, the more angles we look at this problem the better. I think it should be in the news everyday. Overpopulation is in my opinion the world's biggest, worst, most serious issue. We have to start with public education. Further, people must develop an appreciation for nature and its diversity of plant and animal life in order for that biodiversity to be protected proactively.

Educate them, teach them to not reproduce. Teach them about loss of biodiversity.

betsy, I feel like I'm having to repeat myself. I never said the solution was to kill any of the living. There should never be a cull of humans in my opinion. I think humans should be given money as an incentive to get sterilized so that they cannot breed. If the money is great enough, then enough people will do it and the world's problems can be solved. The people who must procreate will have to work much harder. I also think immigration should be stopped in most cases.

I said that we'd all be better off if 90% of us somehow died off. This would allow us to avert the tragic mistake of more species extinctions. This is also what Dr. Eric Pianka has said in his article. I did not say I had a good way of reducing the human population to 10% of present levels. There is no good way until the public recognizes the need. There could be economic incentives. There could be government programs for voluntary sterilization that would pay you big money to get sterilized. There could be a stop to immigration so that third world countries could not continue to overbreed and export their stock to the consumptive nations. None of this will work at present because the public is too enthralled in the economy, working 40+ hours a week, watching professional sports, entertaining themselves, shopping at the mall, etc. The public would have to recognize the problem. Humans have a history of not recognizing a problem until its already too late. I stand firm that the problem of overpopulation and its continued growth caused by the counter-productive goal of every country on earth: (economic growth) is the biggest, worst, most serious problem in the world. This problem should be on the minds of everyone and solutions should be debated and presented daily on the news and all possible means of communication. The best we can do is tell all of our friends and family why we are losing so much wilderness, why we are losing so many species to extinction, why our climate is changing, and what we can do to educate others. The problem lies in the goal of economic growth which entails having more people to consume more resources. This is a very dangerous goal, as resources per capita gradually approaches zero.