ReeferMadness Posted December 3, 2015 Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 The sound is too weak that most people can not hear it or easy to forget it. I did not deny Beijing has pollution, Toronto has too. But western media try to give people impression that it is much worse than actual. Come back when you have some actual evidence. The truth is out there, Mulder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted December 3, 2015 Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 Really??? Do you really believe that the Chinese are going to laugh until they cry at the prospect of adding more coal powered electricity plants? Take a look at these air quality pictures and see if you can repeat that completely idiotic statement. Maybe the idiots didn't go to Paris at all. And New Delhi is surpassing even Beijing. Of course you forgot to mention that even as it builds fossil fuel electricity, China is the world leader in adding new renewable power generation as well. Ya, they must pee themselves as they add exponentially to their own and global pollution, while developed economies like ours bleat that we will willingly beggar ourselves to accomplish nothing while preening for the evening news. Or are you pretending that the Chinese and others are not adding many.any coal plants? WTF does China adding new renewables have to do with the net effect of killing you and me? Am I supposed to cheer my own demise? Oh, they are laughing at you too. Not near you, at you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted December 3, 2015 Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 Come back when you have some actual evidence. The truth is out there, Mulder. JUst anecdotal, but 48 hours in Beijing makes me very anxious to get out of there because I can not stop coughing. How about you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
honeybee Posted December 3, 2015 Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 Come back when you have some actual evidence. The truth is out there, Mulder. Here:is some evidence: The five contaminants in Etobicoke (Wards 5 and 6) — carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, ozone, particulate matter, and sulphur oxides — may increase the risk of premature mortality by as much as 7.4 per cent above the baseline, a study released by the City of Toronto this week found. Specifically, the pollutants responsible for the risks are fine particulate matter, known as PM 2.5, and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). PM 2.5 is particulate matter that measures 2.5 microns in diameter or less. It penetrates the respiratory more easily than larger particles. -- Clearing the air: How commuting in Toronto is putting us at risk ( http://globalnews.ca/news/1087619/toronto-air-pollution-how-commuting-is-killing-us/ ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 (edited) I'm sure you (like I) defended the bill for sending Harper's car to India. People in glass houses... Like other hard core Liberals you seem unable to grasp the difference between what is an official and necessary expense of the office, and whatever the hell your guy feels like spending on himself. Edited December 4, 2015 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 Like other hard core Liberals you seem unable to grasp the difference between what is an official and necessary expense of the office, and whatever the hell your guy feels like spending on himself. I would say that child care is probably more likely to be needed for a PM with a 2 year old than a certain armoured car. There are security concerns that we need to understand. There are also every day reality ones as well. The PM has a different job than you or I. He has very young children. Past PMs have had nannies. Get over it. I'm actually more okay with child care than I am with maids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 I would say that child care is probably more likely to be needed for a PM with a 2 year old than a certain armoured car. There are security concerns that we need to understand. There are also every day reality ones as well. The PM has a different job than you or I. He has very young children. Past PMs have had nannies. Get over it. I'm actually more okay with child care than I am with maids. The only past PM who had a nanny was his daddy, and Mulroney, who lied about it. And neither of them was as rich as him. I have a feeling you'd be okay if he hired a marching band to lead his way to work every morning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 The only past PM who had a nanny was his daddy, and Mulroney, who lied about it. And neither of them was as rich as him. I have a feeling you'd be okay if he hired a marching band to lead his way to work every morning. I don't care how much money he makes. I understand why this is needed for this job. I don't need to be partisan about it. You hate Trudeau. That's great. He's not doing anything wrong here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Chriton Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 "Canada sent 383 people to the U.N. climate conference, more than Australia, the U.K. and U.S. together". Source: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/smyth-canada-sent-383-people-to-the-u-n-climate-conference-more-than-australia-the-u-k-and-u-s-together Scandal #2. Hold on to your wallets! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 "Canada sent 383 people to the U.N. climate conference, more than Australia, the U.K. and U.S. together". Source: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/smyth-canada-sent-383-people-to-the-u-n-climate-conference-more-than-australia-the-u-k-and-u-s-together Scandal #2. Hold on to your wallets! We had to show we're deadly serious about having very little affect on climate change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 We had to show we're deadly serious about having very little affect on climate change. so... you're another who focuses solely on Canada's domestic production and ignores Western/industrialized country outsourcing of emissions to less developed countries... and ignores emissions associated with current (and aspired) Canadian exported oil/gas products? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 Folks, please avoid thread drift. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 (edited) so... you're another who focuses solely on Canada's domestic production and ignores Western/industrialized country outsourcing of emissions to less developed countries... and ignores emissions associated with current (and aspired) Canadian exported oil/gas products? Not at all, I just had a great discussion on here regarding Neil Young's new music player. Folks, please avoid thread drift. Thanks. How is that thread drift? He's a Canadian, and he's having it made in China. So on this point, at least, I do agree with Waldo. Edit> Wait, unless it was all Waldo's fault. I never saw his reply. You deleted it before I got up. Edited December 4, 2015 by bcsapper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitops Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 so... you're another who focuses solely on Canada's domestic production and ignores Western/industrialized country outsourcing of emissions to less developed countries... and ignores emissions associated with current (and aspired) Canadian exported oil/gas products? This is actually a relevant point. It really doesn't matter what the west does, even if you believe reducing emissions is useful. If China does not reduce, and the west just makes all their stuff in China (and of course then takes big about how they are reducing emissions at home), it is just pissing in the wind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Chriton Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 This is actually a relevant point. It really doesn't matter what the west does, even if you believe reducing emissions is useful. If China does not reduce, and the west just makes all their stuff in China (and of course then takes big about how they are reducing emissions at home), it is just pissing in the wind. it's actually worse then pissing in the wind, IMHO. If we make it harder to manufacture in the west, ship jobs overseas, shutdown factories, etc it's just going to be harder to negiotate in the future when we have less of a manufacturing base. It's much easier to say be reasonable China or we'll add tariffs and manufacture ourselfs if we can actually follow through... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 (edited) so... you're another who focuses solely on Canada's domestic production and ignores Western/industrialized country outsourcing of emissions to less developed countries... and ignores emissions associated with current (and aspired) Canadian exported oil/gas products? Let me see if I've got my guilt-complex reading correct. If we export oil and other nations use it to make products, that's our fault. On the other hand, if other countries make products for us from using gas from elsewhere, that's our fault too. So we should basically writhe in an agony of self-loathing and shame, basically. Which means when we slap 'carbon taxes' on energy so that it becomes prohibitively expensive to manufacture things here, and the work shifts to places like China, that's Justin Trudeau and Kathleen Wynne's fault, right? Edited December 4, 2015 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 Let me see if I've got my guilt-complex reading correct. you're too sensitive! I attached no guilt qualification... the intent was to add missing perspective for those who continually whine about Canada being put upon, about Canada taking perceived disproportionate criticism. You know, to highlight Canada has influence in regards to emissions above and beyond the symbolic domestic level aspect that many here so regularly focus on and trot out. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted December 14, 2015 Report Share Posted December 14, 2015 It's no use - we're on the road to ruin.......or was it just alarmist talk? Nobel Laureates: CO2 Emissions Must Peak by 2015 to Avert Climate Ruin LInk: http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20090529/nobel-laureates-co2-emissions-must-peak-2015-avert-climate-ruin Wait - we've been granted another chance! Global Emissions Must Peak by 2030, Says New IPCC Chief Link: http://www.bna.com/global-emissions-must-peak-2030-ipcc-chief-n57982059270/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 14, 2015 Report Share Posted December 14, 2015 you're too sensitive! I attached no guilt qualification... the intent was to add missing perspective The intent is to obfuscate and confuse and try to channel the conversation into esoteric realms few understand and away from simple numbers like 0.144% of world emissions, or the fact India plans to increase their emissions by all of what we currently produce every year for two decades, or the massive cost involved to our economy, or the fact all we're really doing is driving manufacturing away from Canada and over to China or Thailand or Mexico. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 14, 2015 Report Share Posted December 14, 2015 ...all we're really doing is driving manufacturing away from Canada and over to China or Thailand or Mexico. So what? We've been doing that for decades. You want to make it even easier for them by sending them all our resources too? Whose side are you on again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydraboss Posted December 14, 2015 Report Share Posted December 14, 2015 It's no use - we're on the road to ruin.......or was it just alarmist talk? LInk: http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20090529/nobel-laureates-co2-emissions-must-peak-2015-avert-climate-ruin Wait - we've been granted another chance! Link: http://www.bna.com/global-emissions-must-peak-2030-ipcc-chief-n57982059270/ Oh thank the ClimateGod for the reprieve! If we give 100 billion a year until 2030, do you think "It" will grant us another 15 years?? I sure hope so (I was losing sleep over potentially missing our "time extension payments"). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted December 15, 2015 Report Share Posted December 15, 2015 Which means when we slap 'carbon taxes' on energy so that it becomes prohibitively expensive to manufacture things here, and the work shifts to places like China, that's Justin Trudeau and Kathleen Wynne's fault, right? No, you aren't thinking neoprogressively enough. It is the fault of corporations, because they are evil and shipped jobs overseas for no good reason. This justifies more taxes on corporations, especially taxes on CO2 emissions, in order to make them pay for shipping jobs overseas. This will inturn cause more corporations to leave Canada, justifying even more taxes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted December 15, 2015 Report Share Posted December 15, 2015 Oh thank the ClimateGod for the reprieve! If we give 100 billion a year until 2030, do you think "It" will grant us another 15 years?? I sure hope so (I was losing sleep over potentially missing our "time extension payments"). I suppose there really is an Nigerian Prince we can send money to............with regards to the actual summit, my question, how many tons of carbon were used holding them and why they couldn't have conducted said talks via videoconferencing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 15, 2015 Report Share Posted December 15, 2015 I suppose there really is an Nigerian Prince we can send money to............with regards to the actual summit, my question, how many tons of carbon were used holding them and why they couldn't have conducted said talks via videoconferencing? How do you drink champagne and eat caviar by videoconverence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted December 15, 2015 Report Share Posted December 15, 2015 Speaking of responsibility, what is the final dollar count for sending nearly 400 partyhounds delegates to Paris? I would guess a minimum of $10k to $20K per, excluding security bills and cost of aircraft. Would $40 to $80 million sound right? Oh, and the carbon footprint... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.