Assuming AGW is real, what do we do about it ?

[TimG]

The nuclear industry has a black eye there because of massive cost overruns refurbishing existing plants. They never do any even close to on budget or on time. THe FACT is ontario is spending a shitload on nuclear energy.

Then bring the Japanese in to build one. They have no problems building nuke plants on time and on budget. McGinty had no problems bringing the Koreans in when he wanted wind mills.

In any case, the billions spent on wind mills would have been better spent retireing the stranded debt if your claims that new nukes are simply a matter of time had merit.

Edited October 3, 2010 by TimG

[wyly]

That is the problem.

If Al Gore, the greatest spokesperson for the environment couldn't inconvenience himself to be a model of example.....relying on voluntary cooperation from everyone is a hopeless exercise.

and just how many people would be aware of the GW issue if Gore had restricted himself to sitting in tiny room with only a solar powered laptop, burning a candle for light?...it's a global issue that everyone needs to made aware of and Gore has done that... but to educate an entire planet takes enormous amounts of time, cash and energy... Edited October 3, 2010 by wyly

[Michael Hardner]

Is egalitarian suffering important in this scenario? How much cocaine or heroin is sourced from AGW countries? See where this is getting us?

No, I don't. Are we asking for drugs ? I think we are.

[bush_cheney2004]

No, I don't. Are we asking for drugs ? I think we are.

Are we asking for hydrocarbons? I think we are.

[Michael Hardner]

Are we asking for hydrocarbons? I think we are.

Right... so... what are they asking for ? What do the people of these countries get from either the drug trade, or from our industry ? If you're saying that they benefit enough from this to justify ignoring them - not sympathizing - if disaster strikes then that could lead to some inhumane conclusions.

[bush_cheney2004]

Right... so... what are they asking for ? What do the people of these countries get from either the drug trade, or from our industry ? If you're saying that they benefit enough from this to justify ignoring them - not sympathizing - if disaster strikes then that could lead to some inhumane conclusions.

You're all over the map here...first with emotional guilt and remorse, then with the projection of your value system on so called 3rd world countries. What do they get? They get more than North Korea.

That kind of weak leverage will never work....the issue is economics, not humanitarian aid or human rights.

[Michael Hardner]

You're all over the map here...first with emotional guilt and remorse, then with the projection of your value system on so called 3rd world countries. What do they get? They get more than North Korea.

That kind of weak leverage will never work....the issue is economics, not humanitarian aid or human rights.

You're right. Thinking about this, it seems to be that we have an obligation to do more. That's not to say we should feel guilty - guilt is a cop-out for doing nothing, I find. But if we're a cause, we should be responsible.

[TimG]

You're right. Thinking about this, it seems to be that we have an obligation to do more.

Why? The average Canadian may be relatively wealthy when you look at global statistics but many are still living pay check to pay check. They don't feel wealthy yet you are claiming they have an obligation to make large sacrifices to fix complex social problems in another country? Nobody believes that. Even the Canadians who claim the believe that are hypocrites who demand that the price be paid by people other than them. Edited October 3, 2010 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Why? The average Canadian may be relatively wealthy when you look at global statistics but many are still living pay check to pay check. They don't feel wealthy yet you are claiming they have an obligation to make large sacrifices to fix complex social problems in another country? Nobody believes that. Even the Canadians who claim the believe that are hypocrites who demand that the price be paid by people other than them.

Why other than them ? You talked about the average Canadian at the beginning, so why are the ones who want us to pay the price other than them ?

I wouldn`t demand that we pay it, but I would urge that we pay it. 5% isn`t much. We could cut it out of existing budget, and invest the money in an emergency fund. I`m just blue skying here, but I think it would be humane for us to plan to help them - especially if our lifestyle is the cause.

[TimG]

I wouldn`t demand that we pay it, but I would urge that we pay it. 5% isn`t much. We could cut it out of existing budget, and invest the money in an emergency fund. I`m just blue skying here, but I think it would be humane for us to plan to help them - especially if our lifestyle is the cause.

Did you look at the numbers I provided about the costs of climate change? I don't believe there is strong evidence that costs are likely to be much more than 5% too.

[Michael Hardner]

Did you look at the numbers I provided about the costs of climate change? I don't believe there is strong evidence that costs are likely to be much more than 5% too.

Ok - are you saying that we should pay that 5% down the road - even if those costs are nil for Canadians ?

[jbg]

AGW=Anthropogenic (human caused) Global Warming.

Again, this thread is not to debate IF it's happening. If you're on this thread, then we're debating what to do about it.

If its and buts were candies and nuts it would be a great Christmas.

OR

How much wood a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

Edited October 3, 2010 by jbg

[Michael Hardner]

If its and buts were candies and nuts it would be a great Christmas.

OR

How much wood a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuch wood?

If you don`t like the premise of the thread, you shouldn`t post on it should you ?

[TimG]

Ok - are you saying that we should pay that 5% down the road - even if those costs are nil for Canadians?

Of course. 5% 100 years from now is always more affordable than 5% today. I also provided you numbers that show the developing world will be much wealthier in 50 years and better able to pay those costs. Edited October 3, 2010 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Of course. 5% 100 years from now is always more affordable than 5% today. I also provided you numbers that show the developing world will be much wealthy in 50 years and better able to pay those costs.

Well, that`s consistent. It would be better for us to take the approach you`re stating then to debate about things for decades and do nothing.

[jbg]

If you don`t like the premise of the thread, you shouldn`t post on it should you ?

I just cracked a joke. I thought you had a sense of humour if not a sense of humor.

[Michael Hardner]

I just cracked a joke. I thought you had a sense of humour if not a sense of humor.

I suppose I do most of the time. Assuming my lack of sense of humour were real, what would we do about it ?

[bush_cheney2004]

...How much wood a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

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

[betsy]

and just how many people would be aware of the GW issue if Gore had restricted himself to sitting in tiny room with only a solar powered laptop, burning a candle for light?...it's a global issue that everyone needs to made aware of and Gore has done that... but to educate an entire planet takes enormous amounts of time, cash and energy...

He's done it alright. At $300,000 per lecture....hah! Pays better than the presidency, not to mention the power that goes with it. Flying first class is not good enough....it has to be his private jet!

Environment (that includes GW) is an I N D U S T R Y!

GW is a cash cow for Gore!

Tale of Two Houses

House #1

A 20 room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house, all heated by gas. In one month this residence consumes more energy than the average American household does in a year. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2400 per month. In natural gas alone, this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not situated in a Northern or Midwestern 'snow belt' area. It's in the South.

House #2

Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university. This house incorporates every 'green' feature current home construction can provide. The house is 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on a high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat-pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground.

The water (usually 67 degrees F) heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas and it consumes one-quarter electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Surrounding flowers and shrubs native to the area enable the property to blend into the surrounding rural landscape.

HOUSE #1 is outside of Nashville, Tennessee. It is the abode of the 'Environmentalist' Al Gore.

HOUSE #2 is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas. It is the residence of the Ex-President of the United States, George W. Bush.

Read more: http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/al-gore-house-47062202#ixzz11Lk4tFBF

He made changes to show that he follows what he preaches after he got criticized for his seeming hypocrisy! It wouldn't be profitable for him to lose his credibility if he wants to continue milking the environment cause.

Gore isn't quite as green as he's led the world to

Updated 12/7/2006 5:45 PM ET E-mail | Save | Print |

By Peter Schweizer

Correction: In this column that appeared Aug. 10 on the Forum Page, writer Peter Schweizer inaccurately stated that former vice president Al Gore receives royalties from a zinc mine on his property in Tennessee despite his environmental advocacy. He no longer does, as the mine was closed in 2003.

Gore has spoken: The world must embrace a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." To do otherwise, he says, will result in a cataclysmic catastrophe. "Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb," warns the website for his film, An Inconvenient Truth. "We have just 10 years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tailspin."

ON DEADLINE: Your thoughts?

Graciously, Gore tells consumers how to change their lives to curb their carbon-gobbling ways: Switch to compact fluorescent light bulbs, use a clothesline, drive a hybrid, use renewable energy, dramatically cut back on consumption. Better still, responsible global citizens can follow Gore's example, because, as he readily points out in his speeches, he lives a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." But if Al Gore is the world's role model for ecology, the planet is doomed.

For someone who says the sky is falling, he does very little. He says he recycles and drives a hybrid. And he claims he uses renewable energy credits to offset the pollution he produces when using a private jet to promote his film. (In reality, Paramount Classics, the film's distributor, pays this.)

Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself.

Then there is the troubling matter of his energy use. In the Washington, D.C., area, utility companies offer wind energy as an alternative to traditional energy. In Nashville, similar programs exist. Utility customers must simply pay a few extra pennies per kilowatt hour, and they can continue living their carbon-neutral lifestyles knowing that they are supporting wind energy. Plenty of businesses and institutions have signed up. Even the Bush administration is using green energy for some federal office buildings, as are thousands of area residents.

But according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes. Talk about inconvenient truths.

Maybe our very existence isn't threatened.

Gore has held these apocalyptic views about the environment for some time. So why, then, didn't Gore dump his family's large stock holdings in Occidental (Oxy) Petroleum? As executor of his family's trust, over the years Gore has controlled hundreds of thousands of dollars in Oxy stock. Oxy has been mired in controversy over oil drilling in ecologically sensitive areas.

Living carbon-neutral apparently doesn't mean living oil-stock free. Nor does it necessarily mean giving up a mining royalty either.

Humanity might be "sitting on a ticking time bomb," but Gore's home in Carthage is sitting on a zinc mine. Gore receives $20,000 a year in royalties from Pasminco Zinc, which operates a zinc concession on his property. Tennessee has cited the company for adding large quantities of barium, iron and zinc to the nearby Caney Fork River.

The issue here is not simply Gore's hypocrisy; it's a question of credibility. If he genuinely believes the apocalyptic vision he has put forth and calls for radical changes in the way other people live, why hasn't he made any radical change in his life? Giving up the zinc mine or one of his homes is not asking much, given that he wants the rest of us to radically change our lives.

Peter Schweizer is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and author of Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm

We won't get into Al Gore on this topic. I mentioned him on my reply to one of the posters for the relevant reason why we couldn't count on everyone to do their share.

Edited October 4, 2010 by betsy

[jbg]

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

Too funny.

[jbg]

I suppose I do most of the time. Assuming my lack of sense of humour were real, what would we do about it ?

Well, develop a sense of humor as opposed to a sense of humour.

[BubberMiley]

Well, develop a sense of humor as opposed to a sense of humour.

Actually, we spell it with the 'u' in Canada.

I only explain because I know you need lots of help with remedial spelling and grammar, and get very angry when you're wrong about it.

[jbg]

Actually, we spell it with the 'u' in Canada.

I only explain because I know you need lots of help with remedial spelling and grammar, and get very angry when you're wrong about it.

The only thing that angers me is some of your frankly assinine comments.

[Slim]

NG can also be used in transport to combust or to use with a fuel cell. If the priority is reducing dependency on oil then NG available should be directed to transportation. Trying to use it to replace coal electricity undermines that use by creating more demand for NG.

You are assuming that converting transportation wholesale to NG-use is more important (and feasible) than using NG for power-generation. That's a BIG assumption, up for a lot of debate.

If peak oil was our only problem, then you'd have more of a case for that line of thinking. But it's not, and there other options that are feasible for combating peak oil (especially in transportation).

You are also assuming that NG cannot provide for both, which may or may not be the case.

It really does make a difference when all of the majory enviro lobby groups are anti-nuke. If there is that kind difference of opinion then I would need to see organizations like the WWF, Greenpeace or the Suzuki Foundation publically castigate their fellow enviros for oppositing nukes. Until that happens I will lump all enviros in the same group.

Environmental groups can hardly be held responsible for holding up nuclear power. After reading dre's comments (he seems better versed in nuclear power than I) and doing a wee bit of digging, I would agree with him that it's the economics that are presenting the biggest barrier to nuclear power (historically). Do you disagree?

[wyly]

Environmental groups can hardly be held responsible for holding up nuclear power. After reading dre's comments (he seems better versed in nuclear power than I) and doing a wee bit of digging, I would agree with him that it's the economics that are presenting the biggest barrier to nuclear power (historically). Do you disagree?

cost and no one wants a reactor in their backyard...with green energy industry growing everywhere the desire for nuclear energy is getting pushed further out of the picture...