stevoh

Changing the concentrations of any elements in the air we breath is cause for concern. Just as oxygen is used by us in respiration, in great enough concentrations, it causes harm. I agree that the effects of carbon are not as immediate, as say, increasing the concentration of mercury in the atmosphere, but just saying "we don't know so don't worry about it" is foolish. Why? Simply because, by the time we do figure out precisely what the effects are (effects that some would argue we DO already know in sufficient detail) it may be too late to reverse it.

I was referring to the deliberate enhancement of "doubt" within climate science, that, typically, has been associated with republicans. Even scientists who overall agree with the warming client model have done research that disputes a specific conclusion, just to then have that portion of research used as a way of disputing climate science overall. It works. I don't agree with it, but it works. If you disagree with fur coats, you show the bloodiest cruelest way of trapping animals, if you are anti-abortion, you show, well, things I won't even discuss here. The worst case scenario. biggest shock value, is a tried and true tactic. I don't agree with it personally, but would you be inspired to change your consumtion habits if the threat was 2 degrees in 100 years? 2 inches of ocean level rising? Would the environment be on the top of the conservatives current platform if the "facts" were moderated? I don't think so. We do know some things for sure, facts that are not disputed, even in the Fraser institute report. Those two facts are: 1. In the last 100 years the amount of carbon in the atmosphere has increased 30% due to (from Fraser Institute Link): 2. There has not been this much carbon in the atmosphere for the last 400 000 years. (as far back as ice samples can show). That, in itself, is cause for concern.

Isn't part of the reason for the alarmist nature of many climate change advocates due to humans simple reluctance to change? And isn't the reason for the recent hardline approach to climate science partially because any degree of doubt in the science is greatly amplified by those who oppose what actions the climate change implies? I feel that the hard line on climate change has been partially brought about because those who see it happening are frustrated by the lack of action. I mean, how many people are inspired to change their buying habits if they are simply told that temperatures may rise one or two degrees in the next 100 years, or that the ocean is going to rise a few inches? To the majority of us, these changes don't seem all that bad, it might even be nice to have warmer summers and winters. But over time, say, a few hundred or even a thousand years, these effects start to become more devistating. So, in order to push us into action now, to make us change our purchasing and political choices, we are given "worse case scenarios", because anything less would not inspire action by the majority. Any group with a cause overplays the "bad" side of what they are trying to prevent. Because without overplaying that side, the majority will simply not care. And, while it is the current hot topic up here, those in the US political system typically associated with the republicans have for years, been typically overplay the "doubt" surrounding certain areas of climate science in order to dismiss the necessity of any action at all. So, in order to counter this, climate scientists and others focussed on pushing change, are attempting to create an "iron clad case" for climate science. In an attempt to counter the unfortunately effective efforts of doubt creation. So, while others are attempting to attribute these two approaches to climate change, "Alarmism" and "Hard line" climate science, to something more incideous, I simply attribute them to two things, attempting to inspire the majority into action, and attempting to rebuff the efforts of those amplifying every area of doubt to doubt in ALL climate science. We do need to consider how we are effecting the environment and make changes. Overstating and countering doubt are simply attempts to push through that change.

Nothing like having a vested interest to sway you towards believing the bank hype about closing ATM locations... You really think they want to open the market to further "white label" ATM's? Yes, the bank will continue to examine every area of customer bank use in order to extract more profit from wherever they can. Its the nature of their business. However, the nature of a free market is that, once a business is significantly less competitive than other local offerings, things change.

Thats just the problem, certain government programs and subsidies can be based on identifying minorities. As long as these programs exist, there has to be a way of differentiating people to find out if they qualify.

But don't all banks do this for each other? I mean, there are no machines that have interac that I can't use. So, sure, while the bank machine in that specific mall, RBC for example, has many other banking customers using it, the Scotiabank machine in another mall has RBC customers using it. So, in effect, RBC has had to invest 0 dollars in purchasing and maintaining the Scotiabank machine, but still has the benefit of the machine for their own customer base. The incentive that the bank has to keep that apparently "unprofitable" machine functioning in the mall is that somewhere else, another banks machine is creating profit for them with them only having to consume extremely minor network costs. The fees are not in place because the cost of infastructure and maintenance are too high for customers of a different bank. The fees are in place because the bank is able to generate MORE profit using them, and customers have chosen to pay for the "convenience" of using a different banks machine. The fees do not exist out of cost necessity, they exist out of profit opportunity. However, do something that effects that convenience, such as reducing location number, and you loose customers. And goodwill, as you have mentioned. The banks will not do that, the threat remains hollow. That push will occur regardless of whether the fees are removed or not. Why? Because it saves more money and increases profitability. And yes, at some point, banks are going to charge fees for recharging cash cards for other banking customers, if they can do it without loosing customer base and goodwill. Precisely my point. Removing bank machines and reducing customer convenience will be the "tipping point", where suddenly the customer base does start making other decisions. As you can see through bank fees, people may grumble, but they are willing to pay for that convenience. Reduce convenience, loose customers.

Ok, the specific survice they are threatening to reduce is the number of ATM locations. They are already charging for the original service through ATM fees. What more cost effective alternative to using ATM's to access cash will customers have, that also doesn't reduce convenience? And yes, banks continue to be profitable, but already they have created room for ING and independents who's market share is creeping up due to the various improved services/rates they offer. The minute you make a service less convenient and don't replace it with another equally or more effective one, you create further room for competition. That is why the threat is hollow.

I can't find any statistics that show the number of brick and mortar locations per customer for today vs say, 20 years ago when ATMs were just getting started. I do know that many smaller communities have had banks closed and replaced with ATM's from experience when I was younger, and in the city I live, many smaller local banks have closed in favour of having a large central location with and multiple distributed ATMs. But that is knowledge based soley on my experience, so can hardly be taken as overall fact. I honestly believe that this rediculous notion of reducing service because we cannot continue to INCREASE profits at record rates if the government steps in is going to cause the banks more headaches than they would desire. It creates openings for smaller banks that make money the old fashioned way, through lending. And, its not like they will ever say "thats enough profit", those fees will continue to increase to a critical mass where finally a majority of customers will say "enough", and banks will be forced to look elsewhere. The reducing services threat is hollow, as it reduces the customer base. Banks will never do that. It makes no sense. I mean, I would love to walk up to my boss and say, since I am not able to increase my salary at a reasonable rate, I am instead going to reduce the amount of service I will provide you, but its not going to happen. I would be out of a job. Same goes for banks. If they try and reduce the number of locations and overall convenience to customers of their various banking services in efforts to increase profit, customers will simply go elsewhere. Banks threatening to reduce services if an ATM fee restriction is placed by the government will never happen, as it will reduce customer base. Its a false threat.

True, that is another method of increasing profitability. But considering that the original purpose for developing, supporting, and encouraging the use of ATM's was to reduce the cost of multiple brick and mortar locations, along with the accompanying salaries, it all gets a bit much really. This endless quest for greater and greater profits means the banks are endlessly attempting to either reduce costs or increase the amount of money they take from consumers. And who ends up paying more and having less? The consumers. Luckily, as stated before, competition and free choice can compensate for that with thinking consumers. Consumers would certainly appreciate it if the bank could find other ways of increasing profits that aren't of off our backs. Like solid investment, for example. Or efficiencies that do not decrease consumer convenience, as ATMs were supposed to do (24/7 access to your money). I feel that as long as I have reasonable choice in the banking establishment I choose, then I don't agree with government intervention. However, if that choice is removed or limited by collusion, then of course the government should step in. The free market must function as such. New banks should be able to compete. But I do feel its an effective political ploy. Most people I know are annoyed by these fees.

Thats innaccurate. It should actually read, the only way we can continue to increase profits is by continuing to charge the customers more for the same services or create new services. I think I hear more complaints about banking fees now than gas prices, and I am getting tired of them. I even have a "no fee bank account" that I can withdraw money from or pay for purchases from, but when I use another bank, a fee is charged. And as I discovered over christmas, if I use interac more than 20 times on this account, I get charged a buck a transaction for each one, even using my own bank! So, in many cases I got charged a fee twice for one purchase. Lame. However, this is a capitalistic democracy, so I can use my freedom to choose another bank, not surprisingly a local credit union, that gives me unlimited withdrawels on a new account. As long as there is "choice" in our banking, we can make those choices. But give me a break, poor banks trying to remain profitable, as if. Its not that they are about to slip into the red any moment without banking fees, its that they are continually trying to INCREASE profits, so must continually increase fees or find new ways to charge consumers more money.

Show me a link to factual scientific data showing growing polar bear populations and I will agree with you. Show me a quote from Patrick J. Michaels, a known "global warming sceptic" and we get no further. Micheals also happens to agree that global warming science is correct, just that the warming will be "on the low end of the IPCC range". Are you sure you want to quote someone who agrees with global warming science? And, on the subject of funding, it doesn't take much to find out where Micheals funding comes from. Lets look at whats actually happening, not what various people not even involved in the research hypothesize. A good report is here: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1337/pdf/ofr20061337.pdf This report covers the Beaufort sea, and is actual science. It shows that the population in the area is not currently declining, but a significant decrease in overall bear health and cub size would indicate that a decrease in population will occur soon. Another interesting thing about the report is where the money is coming from to finance the research. The Us geological Survey provided the majority, but also BP and Exxon were helping fund the research effort. This is real science, not proselytization. Focus here and find the facts, don't allow someone who's bias happens to match yours dictate your beliefs.

Those are the facts? Where are you getting this information? I have spent a while searching and this is the closest I could get to a comprehensive overall summary: http://www.turismosustentavel.org.br/about...m?uNewsID=91602 back to you: Really? The motivations are pretty clear to me. First, they want to prevent further decline of polar bear populations. Second, they want to bring further awareness to the effects of global warming. That doesn't really take much wondering.

As someone else pointed out, this is just one of the areas of polar bear populations. The Hudson's Bay area is another, and there the population has seen a 17% drop in the last 10 years. If you read the national post, they will only point out the information that conflicts with current global warming science. If you read the globe and mail, they will only point out the information that agrees with current global warming science. The answer is usually somewhere in between.

Of course we know how to fix our own problem. We are already doing it. Our conservative government has to be the greenest in the history of Canada. I am not suggesting making a switch (stop producing oil products, start producing alternate energy) I am suggesting diversification. If there wasn't money to be made, why are Toyota's hybrids doing so well? Why are new solar energy companies springing up? Why is safeway in washington now selling bio-desiel? As in my quote: back to you: I don't believe the trend is going to die off. I see the increase in hybrid vehicle sales and alternative energy sources as continuing. Even those who are flagrantly consumeristic can make greener choices. http://www.lexus.com/hybriddrive/ Why is diversification not a viable solution? I am not suggesting, "turn off oil", I am suggesting gradually decreasing our dependency on it by offering alternate energy sources. Increases in the efficiency of both solar energy and wind farms from a decade or so a go mean they are becoming more and more cost effective alternatives. Electricity can come from multiple sources. Consumers are already making choices, as I am, pushing this trend further through capitalism. From light bulbs to walking to work, from hybrids to solar energy, and through who we vote for, we are taking action. We (my wife and I) are planning a master suite on our house built in the current empty attic. One of the very cool things we are looking into is having that entire floor of our house solar powered, the lights, hot water, whatever uses electricity in a bedroom. Nice eh? Of course, the approval process is turning into a bit of a hassle, with no real building electrical codes around a building that uses alternative power for only a portion of its usage, questions around whether the systems will be connected (they won't), but I remain optimistic. I am not just doing this because I believe in alternative power however, its also damn cool. As things like flourescent light bulbs and hybrids improve, as they reduce in cost, more and more people will see them as viable alternatives. It seems your resistance to these ideas is ideology based, rather than based on actual logic. Because I only need to look around for a few moments to see people making conscious environmental choices.

The thing that makes all of these critisicms hollow is the fact that, if both Suzuki and Al gore were living in Yurts and responsible for 0 emissions, they would not be commended for this by these critics, in fact, they would likely be mocked. The criticisms are pointless because, as is being demonstrated in prior posts, even when both of them DO attempt to make changes and improve their environmental impact, they are still criticized as its "not enough". The great thing about being environmentally concious is that everyone CAN do a small part to help out, how far you go is up to personal choice and beliefs (and practicality). Do you honestly think the Suzuki critics in this thread are going to commend him once he does convert to a bus that uses bio-diesel? Never. I am doing my own little part for the environment with some conscious consumer choices. Both Suzuki and Al Gore are doing far more to change the world view, and therefore impact, on environment than I can ever do. This criticism is pointless. Good on them for fighting for change on such a worthwhile cause.

Your focus is too Canadian centric, we are finding a cure not just for afflicted Canadians, but all AIDS sufferers. Being a leader in researching and perhaps eventually curing a disease that is a world wide problem is great for Canada. But that doesn't match the "what's in it for me" mentality of the average conservative, does it? As you say, the only way to get you to care about something is to make you pay for it.

Wood. Pot.

I think the ultimate solution to "not generating GHGs" is a redundant system with lots of different sources of energy. Wind being one part, hydro electric another part, solar a third, geo-thermal and others. Lots of different ideas. That way, when one system is not producing, another system can compensate. Also, like the concept of hybrid cars, natural gas or other fossil fuel powered plants can be operated when necessary, when the demand is high and the various other forms of power generation are unable to meet the demand. We can evolve into purely non-GHG producing energy as the technologies efficiency improves. From what I have seen, the production of solar panels is getting cheaper and more efficient. However, I have been unable to find any references to how much GHG the production of a solar panel causes, as opposed to the amount of GHG release by say, a coal powered plant, to produce the same amount of energy. Surely, since the solar panel generates energy for 25 to 40 years, the amount of GHG created in production is almost negligable. Also, there appear to be many different ways of manufacturing solar panels, some use harsh chemicals in order to closer approach ideal efficiency, definitely. But there are many alternatives and differing manufacturing processes that appear to both reduce the amount of harsh chemicals present in the actual cells, and the quantity used in manufacture. 10 years of useful life appears to be off as well. Just a quick search of the internet revealed warranties from 25 to 40 years in length. Solar energy also indicates usefulness in systems that directly absorb the heat, such as simply black plastic radiators that heat water. So I am far from ready to dismiss this ever evolving and improving energy source. Just like we have current multiple ways of generating energy, we are going to have to use multiple differing ways of generating environmentally friendly energy as well. There is no holy grail solution, but ingenuity and diversity in solutions make it possible.

Smog is an example of human created climate change on a local level. Regardless of its individual components. One of which, yes, is CO2. You actually stated: That would indicate, in no uncertain language, that you were referring to the whole world, not just europe and north america. Yes, you went on to define those as instances, but your initial statement implies those are merely two examples of an increase in the "world overall". So, in answer to your original question, where did you get the idea that the amount of plant life is reduced in the world overall, the answer is: The facts. It IS reduced every year in the world overall.

There are other alternatives to coal fired power plants. Hydro electric (which admittedly has its own issues), solar, wind, and others. We don't HAVE to produce tons of emissions to produce electricity, it can be done many other ways. AND, you can now purchase solar panels for your home. These are usually used for cottagers "off the grid", but they could also be used to charge your car. This would be an ideal 0 emissions solution. Its not lack of technology. Its lack of will. Trees do capture more CO2 than they release. That is a major part of what coal IS. Its decomposed plant matter greatly compressed over time, mostly carbon. So, when we burn the carbon, we are re-releasing into the atmosphere CO2 that was long since absorbed by the original plant. Thats why the "carbon cycle" is cause for concern. We are taking carbon trapped in plants by millions of years and releasing it through combustion in a short period of time. Trees are a "carbon sink", they absorb more CO2 than they ever release. Unless of course you burn them, or burn one of their eventual states (oil, coal) to re-release it into the atmosphere.

One of the great things about capitalism and democracy is how it allows consumers to push for change where politicians and policy makers stagnate. The toyota hybrid vehicle family has been selling well. Instead of wallowing in the "we can't change it will cost too much" excuse of some major corporations, they have been giving the public the opportunity to make a real change through purchase choice. The toyota hybrids are a "mid step" between gasoline engines and fuel cells. In fact, toyota has already been contacted by fuel cell manufacturers to include adapters that would allow fuel cells to work in their vehicles. Some companies whine about change, claim it will cost to much, and fight it on the political and psuedo scientific front. Other companies do what capitalism demands, change with the times and offer consumer choice. If a big oil company could figure this out, research alternative technologies, look at more eco-friendly processing processes, it could be worth money, through consumer choice. Instead, they choose to whine and deny. Realize instead that this is a growing opportunity that they are beginning to miss out on.

Interesting, I would love to see a link that shows how world forest density, North American, Europe, South America, etc, has increased over the last 200 years. Can you supply one? All I have found is some recent statistics indicating quite the opposite. From http://www.fao.org/forestry/site/28679/en/ -Each year about 13 million hectares of the world's forests are lost due to deforestation, but the rate of net forest loss is slowing down, thanks to new planting and natural expansion of existing forests. -From 1990 to 2000, the net forest loss was 8.9 million hectares per year. -From 2000 to 2005, the net forest loss was 7.3 million hectares per year - an area the size of Sierra Leone or Panama and equivalent to 200 km2 per day. Smog is composed of: Smoke particles, Carbon Dioxide, hydrochloric acid, flourine, and sulphur dioxide (which converts into sulphuric acid, acid rain) and other less abundant trace elements. CO2 = Carbon dioxide. Isn't "plant food" a nice way of putting it? Its also a poison that we expell from our bodies every exhale, and one that can kill us. Depending on context, it can be good (plants need it) and bad (we die from it). But in either case, increasing its concentration, with no mind to the effects of that increase, is foolish.

Strange, I have always had the same impression of right wingers. Tell me, how is being concerned for the environment a "whats in it for me" stance? How exactly is my care and attention of the environment, expressed in numerous ways (from product choice, to recycling) benefitting ME personally? The light bulbs are more expensive. The hybrid cars are more expensive. Recycling is more effort than simply throwing out the trash. The product choices I make due to sustainable practices, more effort again, how exactly is this somehow benefitting ME? Other than a degree of personal self fulfilment, it doesn't. I do it for two reasons. The first is that I care about a whole lot more than just ME. I want others to appreciate our parks and lands. I want future generations to have access to the same resources and advantages we do today. The second is that I support and believe in encouraging companies that are interested in more than simply the bottom line. Companies that have ethical and environmental guidelines to minimize environmental impact and strengthen the abilities of their employees to be independent and self sustaining. To have self worth. In other words, being a left winger to me is about so much more than just myself. It is about a local, regional, and global concern for others, and what I, and others like me, can do to help. My individual efforts may not make much of a difference, but as a community, we are making and leading great changes.

You overplay the degree of uncertainty. While precise estimates may be impossible, trends and analysis are very possible, and that is what the report points out. Just on a logical level, knowing that plants for millions (or thousands if you are creationists) of years have been able to successfully maintain a carbon balance, then reducing the amount of plant life while increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is going to have an effect on the overall concentation of CO2. And that effect is clearly observed in the undenied higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere right now. So, even if you doubt the science that says that all this CO2 being added to the atmosphere is increasing our temperature, that concentration increasing is still a major cause for concern. Regardless of the specific effects, it is going to have an effect, why wait to see what potential damage greatly increasing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere has when we can change it now? Why wait for indisputable examples of human suffering and problems before we do something about it? We have seen on a smaller local level the effects of increasing pollution in various environments. We have even seen examples of localized climate change occuring from increasing carbon in the atmosphere (see London smogs as one). Why anyone can't see that releasing enough CO2 into the atmosphere to change its concentration significantly is also going to have a detrimental effect on a global level is beyond me.

I completely understand what "climate change" refers to when it is meant on a global level. And I have completely defined what my example of "climate change" refers to, local climate change. And how they relate. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/climate%20change I would say 60 years of smog effecting the temperature, humidity, particulate level, and visibility of the London area fits that description, wouldn't you... dude?