Sierra Club ranks Greens first

[Ontario Loyalist]

For all of those out there who like to harp on the fact that the Sierra Club gave the NDP a higher grade that the Greens way back when, this should rectify things:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/09/05/reportcard.html

[Riverwind]

I am curious why we should care what the the Seirra Club's opinion is? They are a single issue activist group and are not quaified to comment on whether economic costs of "ambitious" targets outweigh the benefits.

[Bryan]

Sierra Club supporting Elizabeth May (their former executive director) is the political equivalent to a parent supporting their child. It's unconditional, expected, and essentially meaningless.

[Ontario Loyalist]

I am curious why we should care what the the Seirra Club's opinion is? They are a single issue activist group and are not quaified to comment on whether economic costs of "ambitious" targets outweigh the benefits.

So what? There are a lot of "single issue" organizations out there that also attempt to influence politics.

[Ontario Loyalist]

Sierra Club supporting Elizabeth May (their former executive director) is the political equivalent to a parent supporting their child. It's unconditional, expected, and essentially meaningless.

How very cycnical.

[M.Dancer]

So what? There are a lot of "single issue" organizations out there that also attempt to influence politics.

Indeed, so what.

Now if Esso endorsd the Greens...that would be news.

[M.Dancer]

Sierra Club supporting Elizabeth May (their former executive director) is the political equivalent to a parent supporting their child. It's unconditional, expected, and essentially meaningless.

Or Nicaragua aping Russian foreign policy

[capricorn]

From the Globe, Sept. 2:

Environment Canada has terminated a funding contract to the B.C. chapter of the Sierra Club of Canada, causing the possible closing of a climate-change program initiative.

Pat Dolan, executive director of Environment Canada's outreach and biodiversity priorities division, telephoned the environmental non-profit group last week to say that the $100,000 funding contract, signed May 16, was terminated.

The grant had been approved through the EcoAction Community Funding program, a federal initiative created by the Chrétien government in 1995 and supported by subsequent administrations.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...Story/National/

From the OP linked article dated Sept. 5:

The Sierra Club of Canada gave top marks to the Green party and a failing grade to the Conservatives in its ranking of parties' climate change platforms on Friday, just days before an expected election call.

The Sierra Club has another reason to sulk. Anyone have a soother? They've already worn out half a dozen.

[Ontario Loyalist]

Or Nicaragua aping Russian foreign policy

suggesting apes are Russian is highly disrespectful...

[Canadian Blue]

This gives me just as much concern as if PETA or the Sea Shepard Society were to give the Conservatives a failing grade. If anything it makes me more likely to vote Conservative simply because we all know that an organization like the Sierra Club would always be willing to destroy the economy if it could mean one saved tree in the rainforest.

[blueblood]

suggesting apes are Russian is highly disrespectful...

Shouldn't be disrespecting apes like that. The poor apes.

[Ontario Loyalist]

This gives me just as much concern as if PETA or the Sea Shepard Society were to give the Conservatives a failing grade. If anything it makes me more likely to vote Conservative simply because we all know that an organization like the Sierra Club would always be willing to destroy the economy if it could mean one saved tree in the rainforest.

Spoken like a true Albertan.

[Canadian Blue]

No, I recognize the stupidity of the Green movement. For example they bleat on about climate change, but when it comes to technology which doesn't produce a carbon footprint [Nuclear technology] they are adamantly opposed. The Sierra Club and Green Party are also adamantly opposed to biotechnology which helps produce higher yields of food that have helped feed hundreds of millions in the third world.

I don't mind calling them luddites, and essentially people who more than likely have little interaction with the natural environment and make epic pronouncements from some office in Ottawa.

I fully support conservation and some environmental initiatives that have been shown to work, but not some lofty proposals which would do massive harm to the economy and humanity.

[Canadian Blue]

Shift from a Department of Defence to a Department of Peace.

It doesn't take a "true Albertan" to recognize the idiocy of such a move.

http://www.greenparty.ca/en/policy/visiongreen/partfive

[Ontario Loyalist]

No, I recognize the stupidity of the Green movement.

Like I said, spoken like a true Albertan.

For example they bleat on about climate change, but when it comes to technology which doesn't produce a carbon footprint [Nuclear technology] they are adamantly opposed.

If you don't understand the problems with nuclear power, then I don't know what to say. No carbon footprint? Well, what about the storage of waste or potential accidents like? Nuclear power is simply not a safe alternative.

The Sierra Club and Green Party are also adamantly opposed to biotechnology which helps produce higher yields of food that have helped feed hundreds of millions in the third world.

The manipulation of the genetic makeup of plants and animals has potential serious consequences as well. Your oversimplifying and misrepresenting their stand on the issue, but I can see it is next to useless to try and discuss anything with you in a rational manner.

I don't mind calling them luddites,

Luddites is a term that was applied to to people who feared and resisted change: that seems to apply much more to you and your neocon ilk than it does Greens.

I fully support conservation and some environmental initiatives that have been shown to work, but not some lofty proposals which would do massive harm to the economy and humanity.

One can argue that without taking drastic steps to protect the environment, then "massive harm" will befall the economy and humanity.

[Canadian Blue]

If you don't understand the problems with nuclear power, then I don't know what to say. No carbon footprint? Well, what about the storage of waste or potential accidents like? Nuclear power is simply not a safe alternative.

Are you talking about Chernobyl? That was an example of an incompetent Soviet government. France has basically switched to Nuclear Power, yet I still haven't heard of any major health hazards. Most of the opposition to nuclear power is based on good ole fear mongering.

The manipulation of the genetic makeup of plants and animals has potential serious consequences as well. Your oversimplifying and misrepresenting their stand on the issue, but I can see it is next to useless to try and discuss anything with you in a rational manner.

We've always been screwing around and experimenting with agriculture since the dawn of civilization. As long as said food is safe for consumption why should we be opposed, especially if it feeds millions of people.

Luddites is a term that was applied to to people who feared and resisted change: that seems to apply much more to you and your neocon ilk than it does Greens.

No, luddites are people opposed to technology, which you are as you have shown in your previous posts. As for your second point you've got no clue what a neoconservative is, if anything I am a progressive neoliberal.

One can argue that without taking drastic steps to protect the environment, then "massive harm" will befall the economy and humanity.

Thats all good and well for people who are more concerned with alarmism than reason. Climate change is a problem, however it won't mean the end of civilization, and I doubt we'll be eating Soylent Green in the next decade.

[Riverwind]

If you don't understand the problems with nuclear power, then I don't know what to say. No carbon footprint? Well, what about the storage of waste or potential accidents like? Nuclear power is simply not a safe alternative.

Well then you better learn to love coal because renewables are a niche that are not going to meet our energy needs.

[Ontario Loyalist]

Are you talking about Chernobyl? That was an example of an incompetent Soviet government. France has basically switched to Nuclear Power, yet I still haven't heard of any major health hazards. Most of the opposition to nuclear power is based on good ole fear mongering.

I figured you'd bring that up. There is always the chance that something could happen, and when it comes to radioactivity this is not something that goes away easily or any time soon. That's not fear mongering, that's just common sense. Unfortunately, to prove people like you wrong, something will have to happen, but what difference will it make then when everything is screwed up?

We've always been screwing around and experimenting with agriculture since the dawn of civilization. As long as said food is safe for consumption why should we be opposed, especially if it feeds millions of people.

Excuse me? Are you equating selective breeding and hybridization with genetic modification????? That's just plain stupid.

No, luddites are people opposed to technology, which you are as you have shown in your previous posts.

Luddites (with a capital "L") were opposed to the change that it would bring to their lives and livelihoods, not technology itself. I've never stated I'm against techology in general, just the manner in which some technology is used to our detriment. This is fairly well established; trying to argue otherwise only makes you look like a fool.

As for your second point you've got no clue what a neoconservative is, if anything I am a progressive neoliberal.

Good for you.

Thats all good and well for people who are more concerned with alarmism than reason. Climate change is a problem, however it won't mean the end of civilization, and I doubt we'll be eating Soylent Green in the next decade.

Talking about the potential is not alarmism. Some things that were deemed "alarmist" by you type a decade or two ago have occurred, and the process will continue. It will occur at such a rate, as it already has, whereby people like you will continue to insist that things are not that bad until the point where it really is too late.

[Canadian Blue]

There is always the chance that something could happen, and when it comes to radioactivity this is not something that goes away easily or any time soon. That's not fear mongering, that's just common sense. Unfortunately, to prove people like you wrong, something will have to happen, but what difference will it make then when everything is screwed up?

If you want an example, in my former county residence a rail derailment caused massive pollution to a lake. However it doesn't mean that I'm opposed to all railways.

Excuse me? Are you equating selective breeding and hybridization with genetic modification????? That's just plain stupid.

Not really. I recognize the value of science and progress in helping our world go forward when it comes to feeding the world. It's not plain stupid. But, I would counter that plain stupid is saying that we should stop all biotechnological research because a few greens such as yourself are opposed to it.

I've never stated I'm against techology in general, just the manner in which some technology is used to our detriment. This is fairly well established; trying to argue otherwise only makes you look like a fool.

Which is funny, since you probably would have opposed most technological innovations in the past 300 years as they put a large amount of people out of work. Perhaps you should get with the program instead of wishing for a return to the stone age.

Some things that were deemed "alarmist" by you type a decade or two ago have occurred, and the process will continue.

I'm referring to the ban on DDT, which ironically enough probably would has killed more people than climate change ever will.

It will occur at such a rate, as it already has, whereby people like you will continue to insist that things are not that bad until the point where it really is too late.

The difference is that I'm skeptical of such alarmist claims that pretend the end of civilization will come within a decade.

Edited September 6, 2008 by Canadian Blue

[Canadian Blue]

But since my friend here [Ontario Loyalist] loves to talk about nuclear radiation. I was wondering whether he could give me a case where nuclear power has caused massive environmental damage in North America and resulted in numerous deaths. That is outside of the horrid mutations caused in the movie "The Hills Have Eyes."

Edited September 6, 2008 by Canadian Blue

[Ontario Loyalist]

If you want an example, in my former county residence a rail derailment caused massive pollution to a lake. However it doesn't mean that I'm opposed to all railways.

There's no logic to this analogy. We're taking about radioactivity.

Not really. I recognize the value of science and progress in helping our world go forward when it comes to feeding the world. It's not plain stupid. But, I would counter that plain stupid is saying that we should stop all biotechnological research because a few greens such as yourself are opposed to it.

Most people are concerned about GM food, though. Again, genetically modifying plants and animals is fundamentally different than selective breeding and hybridization.

Which is funny, since you probably would have opposed most technological innovations in the past 300 years as they put a large amount of people out of work. Perhaps you should get with the program instead of wishing for a return to the stone age.

There's no logic to this. Had I lived 300 years ago--which is impossible because I'm alive now--I would have been raised in that society not this one, and so I wouldn't be thinking in terms of 21st century concerns for the environment.

I don't want to return to the stone ages, which is why I'm concerned about the environment...

I'm referring to the ban on DDT, which ironically enough probably would has killed more people than climate change ever will.

And just how do you figure that?

The difference is that I'm skeptical of such alarmist claims that pretend the end of civilization will come within a decade.

I never stated that it would end in a decade; there were warnings about certain problems arising around the year 2000 that have in fact arisen, give or take a few years.

[Canadian Blue]

There's no logic to this analogy. We're taking about radioactivity.

So, can you tell me of a case in western Europe, and North America, where radioactivity resulted in hundreds of deaths?

Most people are concerned about GM food, though. Again, genetically modifying plants and animals is fundamentally different than selective breeding and hybridization.

and, if GM foods could feed millions of people, would you still be opposed even if the food was proven safe by a government agency and scientists?

There's no logic to this. Had I lived 300 years ago--which is impossible because I'm alive now--I would have been raised in that society not this one, and so I wouldn't be thinking in terms of 21st century concerns for the environment.

Number one, you're proposing that we scale back any research on genetics. Even though this research could result in improving humanity. Second, you're proposing that genetically modified foods could be harmful to humans, do you have proof of this?

And just how do you figure that?

Easy, in the fight against malaria, once DDT was no longer used, what do you think would have happened. Malaria would have easily flourished, thus resulting in the deaths of many people. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out.

I never stated that it would end in a decade; there were warnings about certain problems arising around the year 2000 that have in fact arisen, give or take a few years.

Such as what exactly?

[Ontario Loyalist]

But since my friend here [Ontario Loyalist] loves to talk about nuclear radiation. I was wondering whether he could give me a case where nuclear power has caused massive environmental damage in North America and resulted in numerous deaths. That is outside of the horrid mutations caused in the movie "The Hills Have Eyes."

Yeah, I just "loves to talk about" it... being smug about this topic is just another way to come across as a fool.

You may want to read up on the effects of radioactivity in the atmosphere and in the environment. There has been a fair amount of radioactive fall out from various accidents and weapons testing, which has caused higher rates of cancer etc. in people who had an increased likelihood of exposure to the fall out.

Also, as Chernobyl demonstrated, a nuclear accident has global, not local implications.

A list of various nuclear related incidents in the US:

http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html

[Ontario Loyalist]

So, can you tell me of a case in western Europe, and North America, where radioactivity resulted in hundreds of deaths?

I've never said anything about 100s of deaths... just because something hasnt happened doesn't mean the potential doesn't exist. And of course you restrict the criteria to exclude Chernobyl; the Soviet Union was a superpower and one of the most scientifically advanced countries in the world.

and, if GM foods could feed millions of people, would you still be opposed even if the food was proven safe by a government agency and scientists?

It already does, without their knowing... and it hasn't been proven safe; that will take generations to determine. Will GM food really feed the world's starving population? No, because of the money involved in distributing it, etc.

Number one, you're proposing that we scale back any research on genetics. Even though this research could result in improving humanity. Second, you're proposing that genetically modified foods could be harmful to humans, do you have proof of this?

I never said anything about scaling back "research on genetics". Now you're just making things up to be a prick. Do you have any proof that it isn't harmful? Nope.

Easy, in the fight against malaria, once DDT was no longer used, what do you think would have happened. Malaria would have easily flourished, thus resulting in the deaths of many people. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out.

Well, you're certainly not a rocket science, and there are some fairly basic and logical things that you aren't figuring out, so what's your point?

Such as what exactly?

Increased scarcity of resources such as oil will lead to increased conflict. War in Afghanistan in 2001, Iraq 2003, threats of war with Iran--in general western attempts to control the Middle East. Also, what Russia has been up to the last few years.

Melting of the arctic, which is now occuring at a very rapid pace.

[Canadian Blue]

You may want to read up on the effects of radioactivity in the atmosphere and in the environment. There has been a fair amount of radioactive fall out from various accidents and weapons testing, which has caused higher rates of cancer etc. in people who had an increased likelihood of exposure to the fall out.

Now you're talking about nuclear bombs, can you tell me how the radioactive waste stored in the US has severly hurt humanity.

Also, as Chernobyl demonstrated, a nuclear accident has global, not local implications.

A list of various nuclear related incidents in the US:

http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html

Imagine that, isolated incidents which in the end were more or less caused by incompetence. However the most famous incident in the US which was Three Mile Island resulted in zero deaths, and the people in the surrounding area were only subjected to about as much radiation as is emitted by a microwave.

I've never said anything about 100s of deaths... just because something hasnt happened doesn't mean the potential doesn't exist.

The potential exists for alot of things to go wrong, that's why we have safegaurds and emergency response teams in place. Not to mention all of the research that goes into ensuring things don't go wrong.

the Soviet Union was a superpower and one of the most scientifically advanced countries in the world.

That was crumbling at the time due to an incompetent bureaucracy and lazy technicians.

It already does, without their knowing... and it hasn't been proven safe;

Actually government and regulatory bodies test and regulate any agricultural activity to ensure their are no side effects.

that will take generations to determine.

Apart from the scaremongering, I have a feeling that people eating GM foods won't make them worse off, however they'll probably be fed which is better than the alternative that ecologists such as yourself propose.

Do you have any proof that it isn't harmful? Nope.

Awe yes, since you have no proof that it is harmful, you then turn it around and request the burden of proof from me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIvNopv9Pa8

http://www.gmo-safety.eu/en/

http://www.economist.com/world/internation...ory_id=11871937

First, widespread public concern about the safety of these crops has greatly evaporated. Seven academies of science, and a number of independent enquiries and reviews have found no evidence of risks to human health. Second, farmers around the world recognise that GM crops offer many potential benefits, not least the prospect of greater profits. Most important, however, is that GM crops may offer considerable environmental benefits.

http://www.economist.com/business/displays...ory_id=10727808

However the ecologists did win one battle against GM food.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2233839.stm

Zambia's president has refused to overturn his ban on genetically modified (GM) food aid despite the food crisis which is threatening up to 2.4 million people.

Levy Mwanawasa said he would not allow Zambians to eat "poison".

Simply because my people are hungry, that is no justification to give them poison

President Mwanawasa

Up to 13 million people face famine across southern Africa, aid agencies have warned.

But much of the food aid delivered so far has been GM maize from the United States.

Zimbabwe has also banned GM aid in case it contaminates local crops.

A deal was done with Zimbabwe, whereby GM food was milled before being distributed, so that it could not be planted.

Similar arrangements have placated fears over GM food aid in Malawi and Mozambique.

Lost markets

"Simply because my people are hungry, that is no justification to give them poison, to give them food that is intrinsically dangerous to their health," Mr Mwanawasa told journalists at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg.

Mwanawasa's stance is backed by Zimbabwe

Just last weekend, hungry villagers stormed a chief's palace in rural Zambia and made off with 2,000 bags of maize.

They complained that they were dying of starvation while food was lying idle.

The World Food Programme has warned Zambia to accept GM food aid due to the food crisis.

United States aid officials deny that the food is unsafe, pointing out that Americans eat GM maize every day.

The World Health Organisation has certified the grain for human consumption and says it does not constitute a danger to people's health.

But there are fears that southern African nations could lose lucrative export markets in Europe if they cannot certify that their crops are GM-free.