Open Government Not Here... Still Coming...

[GostHacked]

North Americans have a far more destructive environmental footprint than others.

I would contest that. China is the biggest contributor to environmental decline. Also the mass deforestation going on in South America, I'd say contribute more. Not that we don't have our problems, but they are not as bad as other countries around the world.

I know this is not part of the topic, but the destruction is wide spread.

Nuclear power generators. Radioactive while operating, and long term storage of radioactive materials presents a huge problem. We can also look at incidents of 3-Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima(STILL SPEWING OUT LARGE DOSES OF RADIATION) at how bad things go wrong when they do go wrong.

Large interconnecting highways make it harder to migratory land animals to actually do what they've been doing for centuries... migrate. The mesh of wifi towers blanketing areas with electromagnetism affecting migratory patterns of land AND air animals. Birds use the magnetic field of the planet to navigate. Interfere with that, and you mess their migrations up.

Fracking. The amount of fresh water being pissed away to extract shale oil and gas.

Genetically modified crops that have pesticides built in killing a good deal of insect life. Hmm wonder what that does to us when we consume it)

Plastics. It's everywhere and most of it is not bio-degradable. It does break down, but only into smaller bits. (Garbage Patch in the middle of the Pacific ocean twice the size of Texas, mostly contains plastics)

This is just a short list. Once you look into it some, there is environmental destruction everywhere.

It is pretty damn bad Mike.

[Michael Hardner]

I would contest that. China is the biggest contributor to environmental decline. Also the mass deforestation going on in South America, I'd say contribute more. Not that we don't have our problems, but they are not as bad as other countries around the world.

WWF Report on China 2003

Focusing on individual lifestyle, China's

Ecological Footprint in 2003 was 1.6

global hectares per person, the 69th

highest country in the world, and lower

than the world average Ecological

Footprint of 2.2 global hectares per

person.

I know this is not part of the topic, but the destruction is wide spread.

Nuclear power generators. Radioactive while operating, and long term storage of radioactive materials presents a huge problem. We can also look at incidents of 3-Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima(STILL SPEWING OUT LARGE DOSES OF RADIATION) at how bad things go wrong when they do go wrong.

Nuclear is pretty clean, though, overall. This is a question of risk management. If every reactor melts down then, yes, coal maybe is a better option.

It is pretty damn bad Mike.

And it concerns us, and that's good news.

[waldo]

(Garbage Patch in the middle of the Pacific ocean twice the size of Texas, mostly contains plastics)

again... you keep repeating this, over and over, again:

You got a garbage patch in the ocean the size of twice the land mass of Texas.

This is now twice in recent days you've made this reference... not to downplay the significance of what actually exists, I suggest you

check your hyperbole

. Of course, this is a perfect case in point of you missing the big picture... not sure why you would express concerns over plastic ocean pollution at the expense of ignoring the significance of anthropogenic CO2 sourced ocean acidification. Are you really that hypocritical to continue to parlay your concern troll position as a crusading plastics ocean pollution avenger, while ignoring the devastating impacts of acidification on marine life and related consequences. Are you truly that myopic, that insular?

[GostHacked]

again... you keep repeating this, over and over, again:

Although this would be used to prop up my argument about toxicity being our biggest threat and not CO2. I will say this bit and then move on to the topic.

That's because it is a fact. This garbage patch was hypothesized in 1988. It is now a reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch

In August 2009, the Scripps Institution of Oceanography/Project Kaisei SEAPLEX survey mission of the Gyre found that plastic debris was present in 100 consecutive samples taken at varying depths and net sizes along a 1,700 miles (2,700 km) path through the patch. The survey also confirmed that, while the debris field does contain large pieces, it is on the whole made up of smaller items that increase in concentration toward the Gyre's centre, and these 'confetti-like' pieces are clearly visible just beneath the surface.

My apologies to the other posters for this tangent.

[waldo]

Although this would be used to prop up my argument about toxicity being our biggest threat and not CO2. I will say this bit and then move on to the topic.

That's because it is a fact. This garbage patch was hypothesized in 1988. It is now a reality.

and you... refuse to read. I've acknowledged the issue, the problem... while emphasizing your hyperbole - perhaps if you bothered to read the linked article! In any case, the real reason I bothered to respond to your post was to, once again, highlight your personal contradictory scientific quandary, discussed many times over. In this case, as I stated, you once again project upon your earlier crusading plastics ocean pollution avenger self... while denying the devastating impacts of anthropogenic CO2 sourced acidification on marine life and its related consequences. This is additional gravy in that you presume to leverage an earlier 'Scripps' ocean voyage/study. Perhaps I should bring forward the wealth of Scripps analysis on ocean acidification... we could go there if you'd like. But pick another thread - your apology was so heartfelt!

[GostHacked]

and you... refuse to read. I've acknowledged the issue, the problem... while emphasizing your hyperbole - perhaps if you bothered to read the linked article! In any case, the real reason I bothered to respond to your post was to, once again, highlight your personal contradictory scientific quandary, discussed many times over. In this case, as I stated, you once again project upon your earlier crusading plastics ocean pollution avenger self... while denying the devastating impacts of anthropogenic CO2 sourced acidification on marine life and its related consequences. This is additional gravy in that you presume to leverage an earlier 'Scripps' ocean voyage/study. Perhaps I should bring forward the wealth of Scripps analysis on ocean acidification... we could go there if you'd like. But pick another thread - your apology was so heartfelt!

How do you politely tell someone off without getting banned here?

Responding to/debating with you only gets ridicule and name calling. You don't debate with any kind of respect to other posters. You are in one word an 'ass'.

There are things on the horizon that are a much bigger threat than CO2. And closed governments is one of those bigger things. These closed big governments also try to push these carbon reducing agendas on the citizen while allowing most large corporations to continue the status quo. At the same time these schmucks jet set around the world to exotic places INCREASING the CO2 into the air.

Another point is that all the resolutions they agreed on at the recent summit in Rio, are NON BINDING. Which means they have no weight at all in correcting this so called huge issue.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/rio20-earth-summit-results-in-nonbinding-declaration-with-moderate-goals/2012/06/22/gJQA7kpMvV_story.html

The global environment summit concluding Friday, which drew nearly 100 world leaders and more than 45,000 other people to Rio de Janiero and cost tens of millions of dollars, may produce one lasting legacy: Convincing people it’s not worth holding global summits.

The U.N. Conference on Sustainable Development, a once-a-decade meeting aimed at reconciling economic and environmental aspirations, has produced a nonbinding declaration, committing the world’s politicians to modest goals. The proposals set out at the beginning, such as providing universal energy access and doubling renewables by 2030, have been left on the cutting-room floor.

But let's look at part of this issue when the closed governments allow corporations to rape this planet creating this CO2 problem.

There is no question that both companies and countries have used the gathering, with tens of thousands of attendees, as a moment to make new environmental pledges. Grenada announced its transport and electricity sectors will only use clean energy sources by 2030; the corporation Unilever promised to cut its greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2020 and find sustainable sources of beef, soy and palm oil to prevent the deforestation now stemming from production of these three major crops.

So your question and problem of CO2 can be attributed to governments and corporations working together while not tell you all what is going on.

The governments are not telling as all we need to know. And sometimes when they do, the like to leave out important information that might incriminate their own. It's another huge club and you and I are not in it.

http://articles.latimes.com/1992-07-26/business/fi-5362_1_earth-summit

The June Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro yielded two results readily predictable by any seasoned cynic (and forecast by this observer). First and most obvious, many of the more vocal environmental activists were disappointed that far stronger action was not taken. They blamed the United States primarily for the shortfall from their expectations.

But secondly and far less noticed, the range of international regulation of private enterprise was expanded considerably, often far more than could be justified by good science--or even sensible environmentalism.

Its not about saving the environment.

It is hard to understand the reasoning of environmental organizations that think that controlling patent rights over biotechnology is more urgent. Yet perhaps we should not be surprised that the Earth Summit staff planners, who were mainly officials of U.N. agencies, were preoccupied with issues that involved the expansion of their power and authority.

Closed governments attending summits that garner no real results tells me they do NOT have our best interests in mind. And they are using fear mongering scare tactics that only create more fear instead of addressing the root cause of whatever problem they are trying to solve. IN most cases the problem is those in power making horrible decisions for the rest of us.

These governments also use people like you Waldo, to further their goals. You are what can be classified as a 'usefull idiot'. Because you swallow the crap they spew out and think it tastes good. They will drag you along until you are no longer useful and then dump you like yesterday's whore.

These closed governments don't give a shit about global warming or saving the environment. They could care less about you and I regardless of us being on opposite sides of the Co2 coin. They will screw us both.

[waldo]

There are things on the horizon that are a much bigger threat than CO2. And closed governments is one of those bigger things. These closed big governments also try to push these carbon reducing agendas on the citizen while allowing most large corporations to continue the status quo. At the same time these schmucks jet set around the world to exotic places INCREASING the CO2 into the air.

granted, you are generally accepted as one of MLW's leading conspiracy proponents... however, you really need to watch just which conspiracy you're fronting, and which side... or sides... you presume to leverage for your self-serving purposes. You're tripping all over your conspiracies!

for being the self-proclaimed 'toxic pollution guy' you seem to have conveniently forgotten just what progress government agencies have made in dealing with polluting corporations. Is there more to do... will there always be more to do? Of course. In any case, I would have thought by now you'd be very hesitant to pop off about presuming to lambaste "jet setters" for increasing flight related CO2... some wag just might bother to pull out those studies previously presented in assorted MLW threads that show just how negligible that flight related CO2 is - but hey, it always makes for an easy go-to for guys like you, hey?

Another point is that all the resolutions they agreed on at the recent summit in Rio, are NON BINDING. Which means they have no weight at all in correcting this so called huge issue.

notwithstanding full binding commitments, considerable progress has been made through the iterative COP meetings. This progress has been discussed at length through previous MLW threads... progress that has required world nation governments signatory compliance. Does this make them, open, or closed, in your book?

But let's look at part of this issue when the closed governments allow corporations to rape this planet creating this CO2 problem.

So your question and problem of CO2 can be attributed to governments and corporations working together while not tell you all what is going on.

The governments are not telling as all we need to know. And sometimes when they do, the like to leave out important information that might incriminate their own. It's another huge club and you and I are not in it.

oh my! Is this you actually coming around to acknowledging there is a CO2 problem? Clearly, there are forward thinking, pro-active governments willing to work towards developing more sustainable energy sources within their nations... working to reduce emission levels. Other than providing you a thread hook, I'm not quite sure of the related context you're using to declare nation governments not working towards those ends as... "closed governments". I mean, sure, they are closed to reality... but I trust that's not your hook/angle, right?

Its not about saving the environment.

Closed governments attending summits that garner no real results tells me they do NOT have our best interests in mind. And they are using fear mongering scare tactics that only create more fear instead of addressing the root cause of whatever problem they are trying to solve. IN most cases the problem is those in power making horrible decisions for the rest of us.

again... you of the hypocritical and contradicting! Surely, if you decry the lack of results... just what results are you looking for? Oh my! Is this you again actually acknowledging a CO2 emissions problem? If there are no results, are the fear-mongering scare tactics you're railing against... the cause of, uhhhh... your presumed, 'no results'? What? Not enough fear-mongering scare tactics?

These governments also use people like you Waldo, to further their goals. You are what can be classified as a 'usefull idiot'. Because you swallow the crap they spew out and think it tastes good. They will drag you along until you are no longer useful and then dump you like yesterday's whore.

which governments are using... me? Given the absence of any significant North American participation and progress in meeting CO2 emission reductions, in your contradicting best, how am I useful? In any case, this is also you facing one of your hypocritical reference marks... apparently, in regards to your self-proclamation as the 'toxic pollution guy', these governments, to you, have been 'open' in making significant advances in dealing with pollution... making you, as you say, their, 'useful idiot'. Well done, sir!

These closed governments don't give a shit about global warming or saving the environment. They could care less about you and I regardless of us being on opposite sides of the Co2 coin. They will screw us both.

oh wait... is this you now reversing your above statements recognizing/acknowledging a CO2 problem? Are you back to being the 'loud and proud' denier guy you've previously proclaimed? Say it ain't so!

[eyeball]

It is a joke and getting tired of people complaining about it, it is not ever going to open or transparent, it is immpossible.

No, it is merely improbable but given today's technology it would be even easier for us to monitor politicians, senior civil servants and CEO's than it would be for them to monitor us.

[Michael Hardner]

No, it is merely improbable but given today's technology it would be even easier for us to monitor politicians, senior civil servants and CEO's than it would be for them to monitor us.

What would be the point, when their actions are currently publicized but not noticed ?

[bleeding heart]

Open and transparent, I laugh when I hear people talking about that. IMO I don't think any goverment could operate that way and even if mulcair formed a govermnet he to would do the same. It is a joke and getting tired of people complaining about it, it is not ever going to open or transparent, it is immpossible.

You don't think a ranking of 51st (down from the last assessment, not up) is a little less than impressive?

[eyeball]

What would be the point, when their actions are currently publicized but not noticed ?

Jeez you sound even more jaded than me. The point would not be lost on anyone trying to show exactly how and by whom or what their life/livelihood were affected.

But you're right there probably wouldn't be any point for people who've written off the polity, torn up their social contracts and just plain don't give a shit.

[Michael Hardner]

Jeez you sound even more jaded than me. The point would not be lost on anyone trying to show exactly how and by whom or what their life/livelihood were affected.

But you're right there probably wouldn't be any point for people who've written off the polity, torn up their social contracts and just plain don't give a shit.

Your interest group - fish getters - is typical of the experience with policy. It's not open enough to incorporate feedback, so people grumble and give up. Other modes of interaction are revolution (old and not applicable but once in a few hundred years) protest (classic, but doesn't work even in Quebec) and voting... yeah right.

[GostHacked]

granted, you are generally accepted as one of MLW's leading conspiracy proponents... however, you really need to watch just which conspiracy you're fronting, and which side... or sides... you presume to leverage for your self-serving purposes. You're tripping all over your conspiracies!

So much for getting back on topic. .....

[eyeball]

Your interest group - fish getters - is typical of the experience with policy.

And our experience is now pretty much universal.

It's not open enough to incorporate feedback, so people grumble and give up.

As you pointed out this is not good news for policy-makers.

Other modes of interaction are revolution (old and not applicable but once in a few hundred years) protest (classic, but doesn't work even in Quebec) and voting... yeah right.

I bet most people will cleave to the old way given the ineffectiveness of voting and protesting.

[Michael Hardner]

And our experience is now pretty much universal.

Most peoples' opinion of government is based on their experiences with government services.

As you pointed out this is not good news for policy-makers.

They'll resist it, but in the long run it will be good for people who are productive and bad for people who work the system.

I bet most people will cleave to the old way given the ineffectiveness of voting and protesting.

It's tough to see how revolution can happen when the population isn't starving - far from it, they're fat and laden with entertainments. It doesn't create the proper seedbed of anger.

[Topaz]

Since the Harper seems to want provinces to have more power than the feds, does the provinces have more power over the environment than the feds? The provinces that want a clean environment, should make more stronger laws to clean up ALL the toxic mess within their territories, even if the feds don't want too.

[eyeball]

It's tough to see how revolution can happen when the population isn't starving - far from it, they're fat and laden with entertainments. It doesn't create the proper seedbed of anger.

Not until things really start getting tough but by the time they do the only support the state will have is its sycophants amongst an otherwise deeply jaded population with little reason to believe its prescriptions never mind afford much attention to it's rules and conventions.

Anger will probably seem more like a quaint halcyon mood.

[dre]

Most peoples' opinion of government is based on their experiences with government services.

They'll resist it, but in the long run it will be good for people who are productive and bad for people who work the system.

It's tough to see how revolution can happen when the population isn't starving - far from it, they're fat and laden with entertainments. It doesn't create the proper seedbed of anger.

Yes but the party is almost over.