stevoh

Hilary is loosing because her campaign thrust was change, but when compared to Obama, her version of "change" seems like the same ol ****.

Firstly, this information is nothing new, most of it was either already known, or suspected, so the real shocker is the source. The press secretary claims this was an act of conscience, he claims to have initially believed the information he was being told to present, and became disheartened when Bush privately admitted to him that he had had a part in the scooter libby affair. But, he was also "pushed out" of the white house, whatever that means. And he is making money off of this book. So his motives are in question.

When you decide whether or not to support a safe injection site, you have to consider the alternatives. Addicted drug users will shoot up, regardless of whether a safe injection site is there. You prefer to see this on the street? In back alleys and parks? In gas station bathrooms? The garbage associated with hard drug use, I would much rather see that controlled as well, I don't want my children picking up a potentially infected needle. Jail is an alternative. But jail costs more. And its not necessarily equiped to deal with addiction effectively. So, if we don't allow safe injection sites, what are the money saving alternatives?

What private corporations do to increase their bottom line has nothing to do with our debate over whether or not electricity prices will increase at the same rate as oil prices. Privatized electrical providers will increase their rates to whatever the market will bear without regulation (even resorting to deliberately manipulated shortages). This is not dependent on oil prices, it is dependent on corporate decision making. So, over time, as oil prices increase, the costs associated with electric cars will decrease relative to gas powered vehicles. Carbon trading is rubbish, you will get no argument from me there.

I am not suggesting Hydro is the holy grail of power solutions. I am saying that it cannot be eliminated from a discussion around future energy generation. And, it is not directly dependent on soaring fuel costs.

Transmission lines are just as long for other electricity sources. Most of Alberta's coal powered electrical generation plants are in central alberta, close to the coal sources. http://environment.alberta.ca/1164.html

So those making "cheaper" electricity not dependent on soaring fuel costs using hydro will now see greater profit. Which adds more incentive to create more hydro generation plants. Where did hydro go? Considering Canada generates 58% of its electricity from hydro, and that Canada is a land of water and rivers, why aren't you focussing on this area? Hydro (and micro hydro in remote locations) is and always will be a valid option. source: http://www.canren.gc.ca/tech_appl/index.as...d=4&PgId=26 source: http://www.centreforenergy.com/generator2....mp;template=1,0 Well, first off, I have every reason to believe that electricity prices will grow at a slower rate than oil price increases, as most of Canada's power is not currently based on oil, its based on hydro. But lets base that on real evidence. Looking at my electricity bills over the last few years. In January of 2005 I paid $0.06050/kW.h. My last bill (May 2008) charged me $0.06550/kW/h. So, that represents an increase of almost 8% over just under 2 and a half years. In January 2005 oil was just over $40dollars a barrel. Its now hovering around the $125 mark. That represents an increase of just over 300%. Even when I compare month by month, in the end, oil prices have been climbing at a much greater rate than my electric bill. Frankly, I don't see a correlation. Certainly nowhere near an equivalent growth rate. It looks like the real scaremonger in this debate has been revealed.

I agree that the carbon tax is going to have a lesser effect than current market pressures. 58% of Canada's energy comes from hydro-electric, far above the next major energy producer, coal, at 16%. Some provinces, such as Quebec and Labrador, are over 85% hydro electric. For this reason, unless you live in albera (where over 80% is coal or natural gas based), the cost of electricity should not be directly tied to the current cost increase in other energy sources (although I am sure there will be minor effects). So, running an electric car, particularly if you live in quebec (97% hydro generated) should not be significantly effected by the increase in oil prices. If you live in Alberta however, you are pretty much SOL. So, depending on where you live, the cost of charging an electric car with electricity should not increase at the same rate as the current oil increases. In other words, it is gradually becoming a more and more financially viable option. As long as oil prices continue to climb, I believe that a carbon tax is unnecessary. They are going to have an even greater effect than the carbon tax is, make other energy sources more attractive options as relative price decreases.

Why do you feel I am arguing against this point? I am arguing for forsight based on hindsight. Not against cost/benefit analysis. So you are supporting small measured changes to reduce emissions? You seem to be opposed to all efforts no matter how driven as "futile". Yes, I know, I know, you want to see the bodies. A carbon tax is a drop in the bucket compared to what standard market forces are doing right now. Tell me, caring riverwind, what are you doing about the rising costs of gas right now, causing all that poverty and suffering? You must feel this needs immediate action given your concern. I say again, who is suggesting radical action? Are you suggesting that a carbon tax, which, as mentioned before, pales in comparison to the real world price hikes occuring right now, is radical? If that is true the current price increases must seem apocolyptic, what is your plan of action?

City planners have established guidelines which presumably weigh heavily on safety. Then an intersection causes accidents partially due to design, so they change the design. Wouldn't this therefore modify the way the constructed similar intersections in the future as a PREVENTATIVE measure? Or do they continue to make dangerous intersections based on the same design, and only change them one by one until more bodies pile up, perpetuating a dangerous design (and increasing the body count)? I don't think so, they learn from past bad designs, and change the future ones. With intersections, we learn and apply historical knowledge to making future intersections safer. Not applying the same logical ability to atmospheric changes is a severe oversite. I refuse population control because I value life. I am not arguing for radical action. You are the only one advocating for actual population control, like I said, you won't do anything about emissions until the bodies start piling up. Very effective population control indeed.

Thinking that we can, despite historical examples to the contrary, modify the elemental composition of our atmosphere without detrimental effect defies logic. So we have to wait until the effects are proven, as they were with lead, before we act? So all life on earth has to suffer whatever these "effects" are before you agree with countering them? Some of us can look at a dangerous traffic intersection, and see that modification needs to happen before someone gets hurt. You need to see the bodies before your willing to make a change. "It costs too much" is small consolation for things you cannot reverse. Your ludicrous notion of population control is just your attempt at equating an issue with a line that no-one is comfortable drawing. That equation is false.

Believing that we can adapt to any unknown changes in the environment is just niiave, as we don't even know what we will have to adapt to. Right now, the focus is on CO2 and its effect on global temperatures. Increasing CO2 concentrations is also having other effects, some known (ocean absorbtion) and some not. So we may not just be adapting to hotter weather, we may be adapting to warmer oceans, or more acidic oceans, or a whole host of yet to be discovered effects. We have also historically released other elements into the atmosphere without understanding all of the effects, many with poor results. We do know that the current concentrations of various elements in the atmosphere allow life, as we know it now, to occur. We are "not sure" about the effect of increasing CO2, but other lessons from history, such as lead in gasoline, CFCs, and mercury vapours, have taught us that increasing various elemental concentrations without first understanding their effect is just a bad idea. Certainly, we could "adapt" to these changes as well, but a better solution was to remove the source of the contamination, as it meant we didn't have to adapt at all. Increasing CO2 concentrations may not lead to significant global warming, but it is niiave to assume it will have no detrimental effect whatsoever. Adaptation to an unknown result is far more hazardous route than maintaining current elemental concentrations with known life sustaining effect. The other issue with adaptation is that, while we as humans can seal ourselves off, or do whatever else we have to do to survive the current conditions, the rest of life on earth has no such luxury. While we can adapt through innovation and technology, they have to adapt using good ol' evolution, a haphazard and time consuming process. Unless we want to take responsibility for ensuring that all of the life on earth (including the food we eat) can also adapt to any changes, an impossible task, adaptation is a poor option to control. Yes, we could probably survive many changes brought on by human impacts on the environment, we have so far. But adapting to the unknown, and potentially wiping out entire species that don't have that luxury, make the risk too high. Having this point of view has nothing to do with worshipping earth as some kind of entity, and has everthing to do with common sense and learning from the past. If we know that the current atmospheric concentration of various elements in allow life to exist, and we do, then changing those concentrations without truly understanding all of the effects is just a bad idea.

Not necessarily, any more than heterosexuality defines identity. One of my good friends is a small business owner, who is gay. However, he always votes conservative, which might seem counter to a "gay identity". However, he feels he is a business man first, so he votes conservative. Certainly, some choose their sexuality as a primary identity. But that is a choice. Most didn't, and, until recently, kept thier sexuality to themselves instead of moving to a ghetto. It is estimated that about 5% of the population is gay. That ghetto would have to be pretty massive. Defining yourself by your sexuality is a choice.

If that is true, then I am certainly happy that someone "suggested" to my various ex girlfriends that it was a good idea!

Cosmic rays may not be to blame for warming trend: http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326/3/2/024001/ key finding: Low level cloud cover caused by cosmic rays is only responsible for a small portion of global warming. I found this interesting, as it is the reason for the warming that is most often mentioned by AGW skeptics.

Yes, and they are all good and honest people with no agenda's in any case... Please, another blanket statement that does not hold up. Some AGW skeptics are actual scientists, they are worthy of listening to. Some are even well informed individuals who have come to their own conclusions, I respect that. However, there are just as many hacks with other agendas promoting the skepticism as there are idiots who claim the "science is settled", as if science is ever settled. It is dynamic and always re-adjusts, sometimes painfully, to new information as it comes in. Both types of hacks, whether for or against AGW, do the scientific community and public no service, and are simply noise confusing the issue. That being said, lets say for a moment that CO2 emissions are not causing global warming. Is doubling the amount of any element in our atmosphere without understanding the effects a good idea? Just because one of the effects of increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere may not be global warming, does this mean it is benign? That there are no other effects? Is that assumption worth gambling on either? We know that the current concentrations of the various elements in our atmosphere sustain life as we know it, why would we change that significantly without caution? Perhaps the current madness around global warming is in fact unnecessary. But this does not mean increasing CO2 is not a cause for concern, and it does not mean that reducing emissions and attempting to stabilize the composition of our atmosphere is a bad idea.

+1 for honesty It's all a matter of scale. How do you measure "success" when it comes to emissions reduction? I will consider the BC carbon tax a success if our emissions grow at a slower rate than any of the other provinces, when population growth is taken into account. Say, 10% less or more, as compared to historical values. I would be ecstatic if emissions actually reduced while population growth occurs, but I don't see this as a short term realistic solution. I see it more as an evolution, where, as renewable technology comes down in price, as awareness grows, use of non-renewable resources shrinks. Eventually (I hope), there will come a point where there is no increase in emissions as industry and population grows, then, finally, a reduction as our dependence is greatly reduced. But this will not happen this year or even in the next 5 years. "Population Control" is merely a scare tactic designed to make us think that the situation is impossible. A closer examination of changes actually shows that real progress can be made, and has been made, without such drastic measures. I do care about emission control, but I also know this has to balance with human concerns. Its not a choice between one or the other, its gradual change on both.

Doesn't change the fact that the population grew when emissions didn't. Try and spin it any way you like, your original statement is incorrect. Wrong.

Germany's emissions REDUCTION was 19% from 1990 to today.

Your point is a fallicy. You state that no emissions reduction can occur without population reduction. Germany's emissions reduced. The population increased. Your bias must be particularly strong not to see that.

Wrong. Emissions reduction, 19% So we should see a reduction in population from 1990 of about 19% right? Using your logic? 1990 population: 79.4 million 2007 population: 82.4 million

A 20% reduction in energy use from the existing population allows a 20% growth in population with no net increase in emissions. Doesn't matter if that reduction comes from household conservation, buying a hybrid car, walking or biking to work, buying local products, any of these areas of reduction allow a corresponding population growth without an increase in overall emissions.

Increase in population does not necessarily mean increase in energy consumption. Yes. My hydro bill has gone down 20% over the same time last year (and it was colder this month) due to various measures, mostly related to not heating rooms that are not being used, etc. If this same change is made by 4 other houses, we can now add one house and one family to the population with no net increase in energy used. Basically, the energy formerly needed by 4 houses is now enough to supply five. Hardly a token effort.

Data that shows carbon emissions increasing at a comparable rate to other provinces with similar growth rates. The key is I haven't made that decision yet, you are already hedging your bets. Agreed. But neither you or I are climate scientists, and one you linked to espouses the cautionary approach. That should tell you something. There are two problems with this rediculous test. 1. An increase in population may result in an increase in demand for energy, but if that energy source does not produce carbon, then there is no net overall increase in carbon emissions. 2. Another focus of environmental awareness is decreasing the amount of energy we as individuals use, from turning of lights to walking to work. In other words, more people can use the same amount of energy. Increase in energy demand does not necessarily mean increase of carbon producing energy sources. Increase in population does not necessarily mean increase in energy consumption.

My point exactly. You don't agree with the scientist skeptic you linked to, as you don't believe there is any chance the IPCC is right. That to me isn't skepticism, that is you having made up your mind already. She is an actual skeptic who is willing to wait for further data before saying "yes" or "no" to AGW. I am still waiting to see if that big mac is a big deal next year. And, I am also in a "wait and see" mode on the effectiveness of the tax changes. You see, that is the difference between a real skeptic, such as myself, and someone who is a denier, such as yourself. A deniers mind is already made up. Don't believe me? If in one year, BC's total emissions are reduced more than any other provinces, you will find anything else to blame it on other than effectiveness of a carbon tax. I already see the excuses in #1 and #2 above. Its not about scientists having freedom, its about scientists working within the scientific method that has already been established for research. No work would ever be completed if scientists had to defend their efforts against every random critic that comes along. In my opinion, its the role of political bodies such as the IPCC to respond to legitimate questions (not random criticisms) surrounding the science. That, I believe, they have not done very well.