Accountability Now

Lol. This is embarrassing.

No kidding!

We do not ABSORB CO2!!!! Holy crap!!!

See....now you're just making shit up. I said if people didn't breathe then THAT CO2 wouldn't exist. I get that you don't understand science but it must really suck that you can't read either.

From a chemical reaction point of view it's the same. Hydrocarbons plus oxygen give h2o and CO2.

What the F does that have to do with anything? You aren't good at science but great at deflecting. You're original point was that humans don't produce CO2. You have ran from this stupid statement and continue to deflect with such comments. Humans produce CO2 through cellular respiration. They take stored carbon and emit (produce and discharge) it to the atmosphere. How can you not understand that?

And the amount of CO2 fluctuated before we got here due to natural PRODUCTION from burning of hydrocarbons and photosynthesis. Have you figured out the difference between atoms and molecules yet?

I can tell you don't get it. When H2O reacts with CO2 in photosynthesis it becomes oxygen and sugar. It is no longer H2O....at all. The only thing that remains constant is the number of atoms (C, H, O...etc) The amount of water at any given time fluctuates based on these processes. So does the amount of CO2. This is why people talk about it affecting the balance. The bottom line is that when we breathe we produce CO2. If we didn't breathe that CO2 would not exist. The carbon would but not the CO2. It's the exact same when we burn fossil fuels.

Too funny. I guess you don't know the definition of emit is to PRODUCE and discharge. Lol e·mit iˈmit/ verb produce and discharge (something, especially gas or radiation). "coal-fired power stations continue to emit large quantities of sulfur dioxide"

So are you saying we emit CO2 and not produce it?

Do you?

I agree with you but the point that seems to be lost is that burning fossil fuels in most cases is the reason that we have 7 billion people in this world. So shutting it down or reducing it to the point that 'alarmists' want is like asking people to stop breathing...which was the analogy presented. How many people would actually be living in Canada (especially in the winter) if we were relying on solar panels and wind energy to heat our homes?

If humans weren't around then the carbon would still be in the trees and plant life. Our bodies are engines that produce CO2. If there are 3 billion people on earth then they will produce less CO2 than the 7 billion that we will see shortly. Just like if 3 billion people were burning hydrocarbons from the ground, it would be less than 7 billion people doing it. Either way, humans have an impact on CO2 output. With that said it is obvious that our output of C02 by breathing is much less than our output by burning fossil fuels (10% I believe). But the reality is that shutting down fossil fuels to the point that 'alarmists' want is equivalent to asking humans to stop breathing as it would have the same effects in many areas where fossil fuels are the only reliable source of energy. The point is hardly semantics.

LMFAO....no we don't. We burn glucose by adding oxygen. This process (through Krebs cycle) produces CO2 as a by product. Look up cellular respiration. Or better yet...I'll give you the picture to help you out.

Apparently you don't....you said: We do produce CO2 by breathing. Its called cellular respiration. Time to back to grade 5 I guess.

Did you not take grade 5 science. You know....we breath air that plants make and they breath air that people make.

Glucose (C6H12O6) is produced in our bodies by breaking down larger more complext carbohydrates. We breath in Oxygen (O2) to burn the Glucose which then produces CO2 and H2O. Simplified reaction: C6H12O6 (s) + 6 O2 (g) → 6 CO2 (g) + 6 H2O (l) + heat ΔG = −2880 kJ per mol of C6H12O6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_respiration So yes...our bodies are taking solid carbon and turning it into CO2.

The health of First Nations people is as important as every other Canadian. No more. No less.

Watch yourself....those might be racial slurs you're saying. Lol

Perhaps you should actually read what I said before you pipe up? Where have I said they have no responsibilties? Please show me. What I have said is that the treaties do not say we need to provide them even though jacee and overthere suggested otherwise. Of course you agree with me there so I don't reallly need to emphasize that point. I went on to say that our responsibilities do not include providing state of the art treatment facilities especially for low population density areas. In other words pouring a bunch of money into treatment plants that aren't needed at that level. Of course the point that you completely glossed over was where I showed the rough funding per capita that the Feds give to the FN versus other Canadians. I agree that the Feds have responsibilites but its the same as their responsibilties to other Canadians....not 14x. So my question AGAIN.....is how much should the FN be contributing to this equation especially if they are living in economically challenged areas?

You expect me to believe this from a Facebook page? Thousands of Canadians drink well water or have water trucked in from other muncipalities and they are fine with it. Why should each FN have a state of the art water treatment plant which is only efficient with larger populations. Prove it. I see nothing in the treaties that say that. Education...yes. Health Care...yes. Other infrastructure....no. Especially not state of the art water treatment plants. I did prove it. I showed you the numbers. I guess numbers are racial slurs now? Lol. Thats a good one. I think I'll trust the third party audits over the FN reports. I did provide a link in the original post. Look again.

As does her boyfriend or anyone else close to her. Its the rest of the people that suffer.

I responded to your post about having high expectations. I knew what the crickets were about. I hear what you are saying but where this is different is that those cases you listed were cases of war. In Canada, we did make agreements (treaties) and I do believe they should be honored. However, my issue is that the interpretation of those treaties have gone out the door. It is often viewed by the courts as to what the 'intent' of the treates was. I have to believe the intent of the British was not to have the FN as their own nations inside of Canada. Hence the reason why they don't own any land and had limited rights. The intent was for assimilation but that is like the death word whenever mentioned.....and you are called a racist when you even suggest it.

I don't know....but they do. Personally I put my family and health ahead of anything and would move in a minute if either were suffering. I'm not against small town or remote living but only for it if its economically viable.

Who is holding a gun to their head to stay??? Many FN leave the reserves all the time but others CHOOSE to stay for what they beleive is their God given right. Nice work on playing the race card but I'm not buying. This applies just the same any person in Canada who chooses to stay in an area that can't sustain them financially.