The Environment

[Argus]

Emotionally, the right wing posters here deny there is a problem and ergo, no need to do anything.

Of course, this is a gross oversimplification of the beliefs of those who are either on the fence or in open opposition to the often wacked out environmental lobby and it's determination that we abandon cities and go back to living on farms.

I note Suzucki's little "economic" think tank suggests taxing business to the tune of $50-$100 billion per year as a way to reduce income taxes and force businesses to - well, relocate to the US.

In point of fact there is no unanimity on the right side of the political spectrum. I believe the world is growing warmer, but I do not accept that there is valid scientific evidence to show the root cause. The world has seen a number of warming trends in its past (something the kyoto nuts are frantic to deny). I also doubt the validity of the solutions proposed for a problem where no one really knows the root causes. The belief there is scientific unanimity is also silly. Scientists will tell you the world is warming, but there is no unanimity as to degree or cause.

Kyoto was, I believe, intended to slow the absolute growth of emissions by some small fractional degree - at an enormous cost. I mistrust solutions which cost billions and really make only an insignificant, barely noticeable difference to a problem - especially one where no one really knows the causes.

This is called rationality - something those on the left have long ago abandoned on environmental issues.

Note, I do not accuse the Liberals of irrationality. I believe their position on Kyoto is entirely cynical. I don't think they care one way or another whether the earth is warming or its cause or whether any of the proposed solutions will have any affect. They simply want to appear to care in order to get votes from the gullible. And if that means spending billions - of other people's money - in order to look good, well they're fine with that too.

[Dog]

So Milloy thinks smoking is harmless. Are right wingers about to start puffing again? After all, the science on smoking is questionable. It is good for you!

I see why you have been duped into believing the global warming myth , you have very limited reading comprehension skills . Milloy correctly points out that it is agenda or outcome driven science , thus it isnt really science . Rather then buy into science put forth by a divinity school grad like Al Gore who will not debate anyone you may want to see what the father of climatology has to say .

http://ecomythsmith.blogspot.com/2007/05/t...eid-bryson.html

[Jerry J. Fortin]

There is a tinfoil hat sale available at wholesale prices to all the detractors of climate change. Get a grip! I wonder if you folks all belong to the flat earth society as well.

[jdobbin]

I see why you have been duped into believing the global warming myth , you have very limited reading comprehension skills . Milloy correctly points out that it is agenda or outcome driven science , thus it isnt really science . Rather then buy into science put forth by a divinity school grad like Al Gore who will not debate anyone you may want to see what the father of climatology has to say .

Please refrain from the insults.

Milloy is a professional lobbyist. Do you agree with him that there is no evidence that smoking is harmful?

[Riverwind]

There is a tinfoil hat sale available at wholesale prices to all the detractors of climate change. Get a grip! I wonder if you folks all belong to the flat earth society as well.

A few years ago I was really concerned that right wing christian groups were trying to hijack the political process and use their beliefs to justify imposing hardship on others. That threat has basically disappeared but it has been replaced by a concern about left wing eco-fundamentalists that are trying to hijack the political process and use their beliefs to justify imposing hardship on others.

If you want to shiver in a cave and grow your own vegies then all the power to you. But you have no business asking the government pass laws that force others to adopt a lifestyle that conforms to your religious views.

I realize that you will scream about how you views are based on 'science', however, you would be wrong. The only thing that science supports is the notion that CO2 can cause the global temperatures to rise. That's it - nothing more than that. Any predictions of CO2 induced doom nothing are more than speculative fiction produced by scientists and environmental groups in search of funding. These 'predictions' really deserve no more credence than the book of revelations or the writings of nostradamus.

Edited February 26, 2008 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

If you want to shiver in a cave and grow your own vegies then all the power to you. But you have no business asking the government pass laws that force others to adopt a lifestyle that conforms to your religious views.

This is more alarmist than what you accuse Gore of.

[JB Globe]

The thing about dealing with climate change, is that you end up dealing with a whole host of other problems as well. Cutting carbon emissions for example also means you're cutting air pollution, industrial waste, the use of toxic chemicals in building materials, oil dependency, etc.

Things that are normally "externalized" in economic models would be dealt with, ie - we don't link the cost of health problems from all forms of industrial pollution when we evaluate the industrial sector - those are things which just show up when we talk about health care, we never attach them to industry to get an idea of the true cost of being environmentally negligent.

In the long run the changes we can make to deal with climate change might even end up saving us / making us money. ie - energy efficient buildings will save us money, and developing the materials and technical expertise to build them will stimulate the economy.

I fail to see why, for example, being a world leader in exporting green technology in a world where said technology is in huge demand - why would this lead to anything other than economic growth? We're seeing an industrial, economic and technological shift in the way the world operates and I believe it's ridiculous that Canada should fall behind. We can't afford to miss the boat on this one, it would be like missing the boat on assembly-line manufacturing or some other huge innovation.

I'm worried that Canada will fall behind in developing green techs and industry and the world market will look elsewhere. We're already terribly behind the US and Europe in developing wind technology and implementing it, for example. A recent NY Times article profiled the world's largest wind plant being built in Texas of all places (Texas is now the US' #1 state for wind power). There's no reason why many of those turbines can't be made in Canada, but even when we build the handful of Windmills here in Ontario they're imported from Europe.

I don't want the Canadian economy to start to go the way of the big three US automakers - getting lazy, not innovating, and getting left behind when the market shifts away from things like gas-guzzlers towards hybrids.

The thing about climate change is that we can deal with it and make some dough as well.

[Riverwind]

The thing about dealing with climate change, is that you end up dealing with a whole host of other problems as well. Cutting carbon emissions for example also means you're cutting air pollution, industrial waste, the use of toxic chemicals in building materials, oil dependency, etc.

This is complete balderdash. In many cases, cutting carbon for the sake of cutting carbon will produce more toxic waste - not less. For example, more nuclear plants means more nuclear waste. Producing solar cells also results in a lot of toxic chemical waste.

If energy independence and clean air was a priority then one would build a large number of clean coal plants that scrub everything except CO2. Without coal we need uranium which produces toxic waste or build gas plants which required imported gas (north american supplies of natural gas are running low so an increase in natural gas demand will result in natural gas imports from russia et. al).

From an economic perspective green energy means expensive energy because there are some basic laws of thermodynamics that cannot be ignored (for example the energy density of ethenol is much lower than gas which means cars will get lower milage). Any attempt to increase energy prices to make "green" energy competitive will reduce the standard of living for the average person and will slow economic growth.

Bottom line - drastic measures to cut CO2 only make sense if there was real threat. Trying to justify the expense because of ancillary benefits is a waste of time because we could get the same benefits for less cost if we simply ignored CO2.

[stevoh]

This is complete balderdash. In many cases, cutting carbon for the sake of cutting carbon will produce more toxic waste - not less. For example, more nuclear plants means more nuclear waste. Producing solar cells also results in a lot of toxic chemical waste.

While there is a one time cost when producing solar cells in terms of chemical waste (I disagree with the term 'a lot' though, disposable batteries produce significantly more waste per KW than solar cells) that cost is ONE TIME, unlike coal plants, which continue to release toxins throughout the life of the plant.

Also, silicone solar cell based technology is being replaced by new less toxic production methods. The technology continues to develop at an accelerated rate, in no small part due to the increase of interest in green technologies.

If energy independence and clean air was a priority then one would build a large number of clean coal plants that scrub everything except CO2. Without coal we need uranium which produces toxic waste or build gas plants which required imported gas (north american supplies of natural gas are running low so an increase in natural gas demand will result in natural gas imports from russia et. al).

That fails to meet the criteria of renewable resource. We want to reduce energy dependence, pollution, and the use of non-renewable resources.

From an economic perspective green energy means expensive energy because there are some basic laws of thermodynamics that cannot be ignored (for example the energy density of ethenol is much lower than gas which means cars will get lower milage). Any attempt to increase energy prices to make "green" energy competitive will reduce the standard of living for the average person and will slow economic growth.

Ethanol also does not result in a significant decrease in emissions. It meets two of the criteria, renewable resource and reduces energy dependence, but the environmental advantages are questionable.

Bottom line - drastic measures to cut CO2 only make sense if there was real threat. Trying to justify the expense because of ancillary benefits is a waste of time because we could get the same benefits for less cost if we simply ignored CO2.

Reducing all polution levels is a worthy goal. I am not a big supporter of simply screening out CO2 from emissions while everything else is left in to meet certain goals. However, much of the real legislation surrounding incentives and "green" initiatives focus on reducing the use of non-renewable polluting resources overall, not just the CO2 component.

[Keepitsimple]

A couple of good quotes I recently came across:

1) If Global Warming gets any colder, we'll all freeze to death!

2) It appears Mother Nature has joined the ranks of the skeptics.