Poll: More practical way to deal with Climate Change

[shoggoth]

Humans emit over 26 billion tons of co2 into the atmosphere each year

co2 in the atmosphere is rising at about 16 billion tons per year

The oceans are absorbing more co2 from the atmosphere than they emit.

Volcanoes emit less than 1% of co2 that humans emit. They are a bit player.

The cause of the ongoing co2 rise is human emissions.

Sometimes you hear that humans only emit a small amount of co2 compared to nature. But nature also absorbs co2. When you take that into account - and you have to - nature is acting to remove co2 from the atmosphere. It isn't a net source of co2 so the co2 rise does not have a natural cause. It's the human emissions that are driving it upward. You can see that from the first two lines of this post which show that humans are emitting almost twice as much co2 needed to account for the rise.

If you need sources:

human co2 emissions: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htm

atmospheric levels of co2: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.htm

general summary of why co2 is rising: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/fung_01/

[Catchme]

Apparently, some do not know how to use, or refuse to use, google to educate themselves. Moreover, they are singularily lacking critical thinking skills. As it doesn't take much to realize, if smoke from engines and industries create huge amounts of CO2 emissions, how much more would oil wells burning do. It just makes people look silly, who are trying to say otherwise, there is too much information and science to the contrary.

As Iraqi forces fled Kuwait, they lit some 600 oil wells aflame/

http://www.nationalreview.com/adler/adler032103.asp

a UN commission on compensation was established, which also tried to collect data on the impacts of the war on the environment. The information collected demonstrated how much war had caused such environmental degradation as acid rain and marine pollution. Also, during the negotiations for the Kyoto protocol, efforts were made by some industrialized countries to include greenhouse gas emissions from warfare as a factor. But, due to lack of support by other industrialized countries, it was not incorporated it in the protocol.

Still more at:

http://prorev.com/iraqwarone.htm

http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/cont...452q7k41351258/

According to the World Resources Institute, burning wells released nearly half a billion tons of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. This burning alone made Iraq the ninth largest polluting country in 1991. Oil, soot, sulphur and acid rain fell as far as 1,900 kilometres away, poisoning plants and animals, contaminating water and choking people. Average air temperatures in the region were reported to have dropped by almost ten degrees Celsius due to smoke from the burning oil that reduced sunlight.

Four million barrels of oil were released into the Persian Gulf, affecting large areas of the coastline. The destruction of sewage treatment plants resulted in large fish kills due to the discharge of more than 50 millions litres of untreated sewage water into Kuwait Bay every day during the war and its aftermath. The marine environment suffered from oil spills, shading from the smoke, and a sea surface microlayer made toxic to plankton and the larvae of marine organisms

http://www.albaeco.com/sdu/09/htm/main.htm

[geoffrey]

Funny I do not think there are any more important environmenmtal issues, what would you suggest they are?

I just outlined the much bigger issue of environmental toxins that are likely to kill more of us in the next several decades than Global Warming will.

3. Tax plastics and plastic containers and those that make them, heavily so that people are encouraged to use refillable packaging

Of course, paper containers are oh so much better for the environment....

4. Industry and governmental facilitation of dual use, or triple use industries, such as channeling steam and heat output from industry into such things as warming greenhouses in nothern climates.

This is already done in many locations without the need of government intervention.

5. Invest in brick manufacturing that would create a new medium for housing as opposed to wood structures. This would also cut down on clear cuts, living trees for CO2 sinks and create industry for displaced work force. It could also be done in areas where economic decline has commenced but that have some of the needed requirments for such an industry. Brick structures are also more energy conserving.

Depends if you care about saving the polar bears or the humans. Brick and stone houses are correlated with high cancer rates due to higher levels of radiation. Unfortunately, your solution would work until we had higher rates of luekemia. Again, my environmental focus is on eliminating the toxins that are killing people today, Suzuki and the like are fighting something that may or may not happen with or without human intervention, sometime within the next unknown amount of years/decades/centuries/millenia.

Living in a brick house is equivalent on average to receiving 7.5 additional x-rays per year. Not something I'd ever want to do.

http://www.uihealthcare.com/topics/medical...nradiation.html

6. Change from our current GDP designation for well being to a GPI.

GPI doesn't pay the bills. You can frolick in fields of clover all you want, but eventually those bills come due and the GDP or the wealth of the nation is what gives us our current standard of living.

Your other points I more or less agree with, or couldn't be bothered to argue such a minor point.

[Catchme]

Funny I do not think there are any more important environmenmtal issues, what would you suggest they are?

I just outlined the much bigger issue of environmental toxins that are likely to kill more of us in the next several decades than Global Warming will.

Never saw it.

3. Tax plastics and plastic containers and those that make them, heavily so that people are encouraged to use refillable packaging

Of course, paper containers are oh so much better for the environment....

They are, and indeed, if the paper was hemp it would be even better.

4. Industry and governmental facilitation of dual use, or triple use industries, such as channeling steam and heat output from industry into such things as warming greenhouses in nothern climates.

This is already done in many locations without the need of government intervention.

Fulll scale, needs to be done in a more timely matter, and it is investors and tax money better spent than on buying credits. Plus it will lessen the foot print of transportation costs for produce.

5. Invest in brick manufacturing that would create a new medium for housing as opposed to wood structures. This would also cut down on clear cuts, living trees for CO2 sinks and create industry for displaced work force. It could also be done in areas where economic decline has commenced but that have some of the needed requirments for such an industry. Brick structures are also more energy conserving.

Depends if you care about saving the polar bears or the humans. Brick and stone houses are correlated with high cancer rates due to higher levels of radiation. Unfortunately, your solution would work until we had higher rates of luekemia. Again, my environmental focus is on eliminating the toxins that are killing people today, Suzuki and the like are fighting something that may or may not happen with or without human intervention, sometime within the next unknown amount of years/decades/centuries/millenia.

Living in a brick house is equivalent on average to receiving 7.5 additional x-rays per year. Not something I'd ever want to do.

http://www.uihealthcare.com/topics/medical...nradiation.html

Your link had nothing about this, and considering the plastics we use and other home hazards, I doubt that there would be any significant increase in cancers, and would probably be a net decrease actually. And it is radon, not radiation that people get exposed to. And I was not talking about cement blocks. Try harder geoffery, you are certainly not rebutting anything.

6. Change from our current GDP designation for well being to a GPI.

GPI doesn't pay the bills. You can frolick in fields of clover all you want, but eventually those bills come due and the GDP or the wealth of the nation is what gives us our current standard of living.

Sure it does.

[geoffrey]

Never saw it.

Then re-read it or perhaps open your mind before going on a bit rant.

Fulll scale, needs to be done in a more timely matter, and it is investors and tax money better spent than on buying credits. Plus it will lessen the foot print of transportation costs for produce.

This is the only contention of yours that I'll agree with completely, with the caveat that I don't think we have any obligation to buy credits anyways.

Your link had nothing about this, and considering the plastics we use and other home hazards, I doubt that there would be any significant increase in cancers, and would probably be a net decrease actually. And it is radon, not radiation that people get exposed to. And I was not talking about cement blocks. Try harder geoffery, you are certainly not rebutting anything.

Sure it does, go to the exposure table at the bottom of page and you'll see that you have 75mrem/yr in additional radiation exposure living in a brick house, equivalent to 7.5 chest x-rays.

It's awfully unfortunate that you don't realise the threat from radon is in fact radiation. Radon is a radioactive element that affixes itself in your lungs and leads to higher rates of lung cancer amongst those exposed long-term in high enough doses.

Brick houses actually have nothing to do with radon at all. The radiation is from trace uranium and thorium in the actual bricks and mortar that is being emited.

Sure it does.

What are you basing your GPI on? It's too subjective a measure. All economic activity is good for someone, otherwise it wouldn't be happening.

[Catchme]

Good grief, we get more radiation from our air, food milk and water per year than, we do from living in a brick house according to the charts you linked to.

Here is a comparison wood to bricjk, not much difference, local is more significant actually. But good try geoff.

In Ohio, radiation in soil and rocks contributes about 60 millirem in one year to our exposure. In Colorado, it is about 105 millirem per year. In Kerala, India, this radioactivity from soil and rocks can be 3,000 millirem per year, and at a beach in Guarapari, Brazil, it is over 5 millirem in a single hour. Some of the residents who use that beach receive doses approaching 1,000 millirem per year.

If you live in a wood house, the natural radioactivity in the building materials gives you a dose of 30 to 50 millirem per year. In a brick house, the dose is 50 to 100 millirem per year. And, if your home is so tightly sealed that the leakage of outside air into the home is small, natural radioactive gases (radon) can be trapped for a longer period of time and thus increase your dose./

http://www.iem-inc.com/primer.html

[speaker]

I'd never heard of this, the Genuine Progress Indicator, Thank you Catchme.

A comparison of benefit derived from investment in conservation that provides as much energy as drilling for oil, building pipelines across otherwise productive land, building ships to transport it and cleaning up the pollution caused by shipping error, burning the oil to produce power for some process, the pollution occuring because of it, and needless to say fighting wars over control of oil. GPI or GDP as measurement. Which one is more realistic in terms of economic/ecologic ,,,, ya I'd go with the GPI

http://www.gpiatlantic.org/gpi.htm

[geoffrey]

Meausre it however you like, cleaning up spills and legal fees from divorces still feed a ton of people and put alot of kids through school, no? Why is that good excluded from the calculations?

Negative things are unavoidable in society. We might as well recognize that some people benefit from them.

[blueblood]

1. Immediate investing in hemp production and industry for paper products, this would do

several positive things alone.

- decrease the need for cellulose from trees, that are being clear cut for such purposes.

- increase the amount of carbon sinks needed, and keeping the ones in place that we

already have

- provide economic sustainabilty for environmentally friendly economics

- reclaim marginal and overused land by re-building top soil levels

- keep top soil levels in place that may be blown away because of drought, and thereby

become semis arid and arid land that is useless

- create hemp fibre products that replace those made from plastics that are made from

fossil fuels

-Umm, the forestry industry in Canada has taken a very large hit. Lumber is ridiculously cheap now. Paper is starting to go the way of the dodo, everything is done electronically now and will be done moreso in the future, take note of all the pulp and paper mills going belly up, the market is not there anymore and is slipping away.

-The land that is suitable for hemp production is already being used for wheat, corn, canola which already soaks up carbon dioxide and is used for biofuels and food, where's this extra land going to come from?

-There really isn't a significant market for hemp, so I am skeptical about the economics of it, also there are input costs and heavy wear on machinery associated with hemp.

-other crops already take care of soil levels

-still cheaper to make plastics from oil.

-Hemp doesn't like dry weather, that is a problem in the best growing areas.

Hemp has numerous benefits which can be found all over the internet. There are other arguments for growing hemp, these are not them. The only way to get hemp online is through gov't legislation, the market as it is doesn't need it.

[Catchme]

I'd never heard of this, the Genuine Progress Indicator, Thank you Catchme.

A comparison of benefit derived from investment in conservation that provides as much energy as drilling for oil, building pipelines across otherwise productive land, building ships to transport it and cleaning up the pollution caused by shipping error, burning the oil to produce power for some process, the pollution occuring because of it, and needless to say fighting wars over control of oil. GPI or GDP as measurement. Which one is more realistic in terms of economic/ecologic ,,,, ya I'd go with the GPI

http://www.gpiatlantic.org/gpi.htm

You're quite welcome, the time for GPI has come, well actually it is long overdue.

Jack Layton has been a proponent of the GPI since his days as Toronto City councilor. And the NDP in NB/NS were very active in the creation of it.

The following suggested sustainability-linked content could be considered for

inclusion into the Official Plan document:

· health and social services

· citizen participation and ownership of green spaces

· links among the Official Plan and other City plans

· comprehensive energy strategy

· waste resource reduction, re-use and recycling

· water efficiency

· enhancing transit use

· affordable housing

· bike and pedestrian transit

The report also suggested, that to check the issues addressed in the Official

Plan, the Genuine Progress Index project in Nova Scotia (GPI Atlantic), be

used as a guide.

http://www.toronto.ca/sustainability/pdf/20010928.pdf

[Catchme]

1. Immediate investing in hemp production and industry for paper products, this would do

several positive things alone.

- decrease the need for cellulose from trees, that are being clear cut for such purposes.

- increase the amount of carbon sinks needed, and keeping the ones in place that we

already have

- provide economic sustainabilty for environmentally friendly economics

- reclaim marginal and overused land by re-building top soil levels

- keep top soil levels in place that may be blown away because of drought, and thereby

become semis arid and arid land that is useless

- create hemp fibre products that replace those made from plastics that are made from

fossil fuels

-Umm, the forestry industry in Canada has taken a very large hit. Lumber is ridiculously cheap now. Paper is starting to go the way of the dodo, everything is done electronically now and will be done moreso in the future, take note of all the pulp and paper mills going belly up, the market is not there anymore and is slipping away.

It is taking a huge hit because the Asian markets are drying up because they are using pulp from China to make paper. However, paper markets from hemp cellose in in the Americas, and Europe could be opened up, the EU will not use paper/wood products that are not environmentally certified. Moreover, getting rid of plastics will mean moving back to paprer wrapping products.

Getting rid of plastics used in clothing, by re-introducing hemp fibre for clothing would on mass production scales could be acheived.

-The land that is suitable for hemp production is already being used for wheat, corn, canola which already soaks up carbon dioxide and is used for biofuels and food, where's this extra land going to come from?

Not true, did you know that the praire farmers used hemp for wind breaks and turning marginal soil into good soil, in the sand hills hills of SK, until the RCMP came and burnt them all and thrust the area even further into a dust bowl? There is lots of land available for growing hemp.

-There really isn't a significant market for hemp, so I am skeptical about the economics of it, also there are input costs and heavy wear on machinery associated with hemp.

Markets are created, hemp is more durable than cotton, and other clothes, and hemp would grow well in areas where cotton growing has destroyed the land.

-other crops already take care of soil levels

please provide proof. Fields would not have to lay fallow, they could be planted with hemp one year and grains the next.

-still cheaper to make plastics from oil.

Not after start costs were paid, and our environment is more important that producing plastics.

-Hemp doesn't like dry weather, that is a problem in the best growing areas.

Untrue again.

Hemp has numerous benefits which can be found all over the internet. There are other arguments for growing hemp, these are not them.

They are, and they are more reasons even.

The only way to get hemp online is through gov't legislation, the market as it is doesn't need it.

We are speaking of a whole restructuring of government actions and the timely implementation of growing hemp as a huge industry for, clothing, and materials, ropes, paper, CO2 sinks, diet suppliments, land reclamation, job source for displaced workers, alternate crops to maximize land use for farmers and much much more.

[blueblood]

site

Worth checking out.

There is lots of land available for growing hemp.

Not when it's growing other crops and it's forested. What incentive do I have to grow hemp; dealing with rotting hay, low seed yields, hard on machinery, red tape, high amts. of fertilizer needed, no known herbicides to combat pests. My land is better used to grow tried and true crops under a tried and true system, a majority of farmers will agree with me.

please provide proof. Fields would not have to lay fallow, they could be planted with hemp one year and grains the next.

I do not fallow any of my fields, my canola/wheat rotation thrown in with the odd alfalfa field works for me.

With heavy hemp production like you are stating would put an even greater strain on the food supply, would you support that. I would support the hemp industry if it were set up better like the biofuel sector. It all boils down to costs, it is cheaper to produce oil and petrol products. It's up to the hemp industry to get going, if there's money in it for me, I'd grow it, but as of now there isn't. The hemp industry is so volatile and risky, you need the big boys to buy it as the fringe market just doesn't pay very well.

As much as you hate GWB, his biofuel plan is helping out the ag sector big time, which helps out the economy and the environment. There are experiments being done to see if they can make plastics out of canola oil. GWB wants 20% biofuel in American fuel, hemp doesn't really fit in with this strategy. With grain/canola providing much better returns than hemp, why grow it?

[ScottSA]

With grain/canola providing much better returns than hemp, why grow it?

Because you can't make hemp sandals with canola? And besides, hemp is like cool, because you can grow dope plants in the same field and pretend to be dumb when the RCMP notices great big resonous buds on some...

[betsy]

It is NOT unscientific to assume the problem is man made in fact it is quite the opposite, science is proving it is man made.

It is not scientific to assume. That is the keyword here....this is all based on assumption then!

I noticed that Elizabeth May and the president of Terra-something both said that according to the scientific study, "climate change is very likely caused by man."

"Very likely" is quite different from, "yes, it is."

[Canuck E Stan]

It is not scientific to assume. That is the keyword here....this is all based on assumption then!

I noticed that Elizabeth May and the president of Terra-something both said that according to the scientific study, "climate change is very likely caused by man."

"Very likely" is quite different from, "yes, it is."

Think of the atmosphere as 100 cases of 24 one-litre bottles of water -- 2,400 litres in all.

According to the global warming theory, rising levels of human-produced carbon dioxide are trapping more of the sun's reflected heat in the atmosphere and dangerously warming the planet.

But 99 of our cases would be nitrogen (78%) and oxygen (21%), neither of which are greenhouse gases. Only one case -- just 24 bottles out of 2,400 -- would contain greenhouse gases.

Of the bottles in the greenhouse gas case, 23 would be water vapour.

Water vapour is the most abundant greenhouse gas, yet scientists will admit they understand very little about its impact on global warming. (It may actually help cool the planet: As the earth heats up, water vapour may form into more clouds and reflect solar radiation before it reaches the surface. Maybe. We don't know.)

The very last bottle in that very last case would be carbon dioxide, one bottle out of 2,400.

Carbon dioxide makes up just 0.04% of the entire atmosphere, and most of that -- at least 95% -- is naturally occurring (decaying plants, forest fires, volcanoes, releases from the oceans).

At most, 5% of the carbon dioxide in the air comes from human sources such as power plants, cars, oilsands, etc.

So in our single bottle of carbon dioxide, just 50 ml is man-made carbon dioxide. Out of our model atmosphere of 2,400 litres of water, just about a shot glassful is carbon dioxide put their by humans. And of that miniscule amount, Canada's contribution is just 2% --about 1 ml.

Do The Math

If, as Mr. Dion demands, we honoured our Kyoto commitments and reduced our current CO2 emissions by one-third -- which would involve shutting down all the coal-fired power generating plants in Canada (and living with constant brownouts and blackouts); or taking all the cars or all the commercial vehicles off the roads; or shutting down the oilsands; or some combination of all these -- we would be saving one-third of 1 ml-- the tip of an eyedropper.

And somehow, that is supposed to save the planet from warming; the tip of one eyedropper out of 2,400 bottles of water.

That might be true if carbon dioxide were the most toxic substance ever discovered by man. But it is not. We each expel it every time we exhale.

It's hard to imagine how such a tiny amount of a benign substance could cause the end of the planet. Maybe Mr. Dion could explain that in his next press release.

[B. Max]

And somehow, that is supposed to save the planet from warming; the tip of one eyedropper out of 2,400 bottles of water.

That might be true if carbon dioxide were the most toxic substance ever discovered by man. But it is not. We each expel it every time we exhale.

It's hard to imagine how such a tiny amount of a benign substance could cause the end of the planet. Maybe Mr. Dion could explain that in his next press release.

The alarmist's who preach man made global warming don't like facts. It gets way of their of their agenda and confuses people. Which is why they continually claim the debate is over.

[Catchme]

There is lots of land available for growing hemp.

With grain/canola providing much better returns than hemp, why grow it?

Because it will help the environment on a good many levels, and will become profitable.

As opposed to growing genetically modified canola, that may well be killing bees, and should never be used for human consumption.

Vegtable oils already make plastics. Which are just as hazardous to the environment as fossil fuel plastics.

Hemp for jute, does not require herbicides.

[blueblood]

There is lots of land available for growing hemp.

With grain/canola providing much better returns than hemp, why grow it?

Because it will help the environment on a good many levels, and will become profitable.

As opposed to growing genetically modified canola, that may well be killing bees, and should never be used for human consumption.

Vegtable oils already make plastics. Which are just as hazardous to the environment as fossil fuel plastics.

Hemp for jute, does not require herbicides.

Helping out the environment doesn't necessarilly pay the bills, if it pays the bills and is environmentally friendly I pursue it. GM canola is only modified so that glyphosate herbicide can be applied to the field killing all the weeds whilst leaving the canola alone, that's it that's all anything more is just fear mongering, the only downside is the sky high price and copyright BS with it. The killing bees part of canola is due to the fact that the seeds are coated in a seed treatment designed to kill any organism that eats the plant during the cotyledon to the pre-flowering stage, that takes care of flea beetles, not sure about bees. If bees are dying, it might be due to the fact that there is residual chemical from smoking the flea beatles and armyworms. That having been said it's scientifically proven that Canola oil is the best vegetable oil on the market and is by far the healthiest to use, the GM stuff is getting to be phased into biodiesel etc. so you might not have to worry about that. Nexera Canola which is used to make Natreon Oil is by far the healthiest veg. oil in creation, you'd be happy to know that it is NOT genetically modified and was developed using the old open pollination technique. Veg. oil plastics shouldn't be hard on the env. as they should be biodegradable.

Hemp, to be grown up to premium standards would require herbicides. That's the smallest problem, the ridiculous amt. of fertilizer needed and the fact that you would burn much more fuel growing it is an environmental problem in itself. Hemp will only become profitable if there is a stable mainstream demand for it, right now it's just too expensive and doesn't provide good enough returns. If people want Hemp to be grown, they should lay down some money. Until there is real money to be made in Hemp, the fields will stay as they are.

[speaker]

Meausre it however you like, cleaning up spills and legal fees from divorces still feed a ton of people and put alot of kids through school, no? Why is that good excluded from the calculations?

Negative things are unavoidable in society. We might as well recognize that some people benefit from them.

Why would you measure a good from something like oil spills, and not measure the costs as a cost? I'm not trying to be rhetorical here. There is something fundamentally wrong with our economic mentality and it has to do with not recognizing the impact that we are having on ourselves from the negative effects of our actions. I like this Genuine Progress Index, GPI, because there appears to be recognition of this flaw.

[fellowtraveller]

As always I am profoundly moved by the depth of feeling expressed here, but one thing puzzles me.

Canadians are, per capita, the largest energy gluttons on the plant.

Yes, that includes you.

Gluttons.

An obvious personal choice, the only responsible choice, is for all of us to immediately leave this frozen land and head south. You cannot live here and not consume serious amounts of energy, and cannot avoid generating serious amounts of greenhouse gases while doing so.

The only responsible, personal act of integrity is to leave immediately for a climate that uses far less energy for day to day survival.

I haven't seen one post here or anywhere else that announces an imminent departure.

Who is willing to leave, now?

[speaker]

Meausre it however you like, cleaning up spills and legal fees from divorces still feed a ton of people and put alot of kids through school, no? Why is that good excluded from the calculations?

Negative things are unavoidable in society. We might as well recognize that some people benefit from them.

Why would you measure a good from something like oil spills, and not measure the costs as a cost? I'm not trying to be rhetorical here. There is something fundamentally wrong with our economic mentality and it has to do with not recognizing the impact that we are having on ourselves from the negative effects of our actions. I like this Genuine Progress Index, GPI, because there appears to be recognition of this flaw.

And in the case of this particular thread why not measure the cost of carbon emmissions and apply them to economic analysis.

fellowtraveller, you are right of course. I think we should all announce that we are moving to Costa Rica. Arriba! Arriba!

Actually we can reduce our impact through conservation, solar energy, (passive, active, and photovoltaic,) wind, geothermal, small hydro, tidal, wave energy, we don't need to be putting the carbon in the air like we do. The idea would be to have a net positive impact on carbon emmissions through alternative energies and sequestration, ie building up agricultural soils, planting trees, etc.

I expect that if global warming continues the way it is projected by the IPCC we may have traffic jams on our way south as less fortunate people head in our direction.

[stevoh]

It's hard to imagine how such a tiny amount of a benign substance could cause the end of the planet. Maybe Mr. Dion could explain that in his next press release.

It may be hard to imagine, but that's hardly a scientific analysis. It was hard to imagine millions of passenger pigeons being wiped out when the sky used to be black with them, but we pulled it off. Its hard to imagine that almost undectable amounts of mercury in the atmosphere can have a detrimental effect, but it does.

We know that the CO2 levels in our atmosphere have gone up from 200 ppm to 320 ppm in the last 100 years, a higher concentration than has existed for the last 400 000 to 600 000 years.

I have yet to hear another explanation for this increase in concentration that makes sense. The human influence is the only one that can explain the increase in the last 100 years.

I don't need to understand the science in detail to know that increasing the concentration of one of the elements in the atmosphere without regard to its effect is a bad idea. If we endlessly bicker about its effects while doing nothing, then once the effects are known and proven, it may be too late to reverse them.

Yes, Canada is not responsible for the majority of the worlds pollution. But, same as the excuses you see here, the countries that are responsible for the majority of pollution are claiming that the effects are not proven, and that the financial cost of moderation is too high.

Dion is claiming that he can demonstrate that we will have a vibrant and viable economy even with the focus on emmissions reduction. He is claiming that not only can Canada reduce their emission contribution, but also that Canada can demonstrate the economic feasibility of doing so.

the man who says it can't be done is generally interrupted by someone doing it.

[B. Max]

We know that the CO2 levels in our atmosphere have gone up from 200 ppm to 320 ppm in the last 100 years, a higher concentration than has existed for the last 400 000 to 600 000 years.

I have yet to hear another explanation for this increase in concentration that makes sense. The human influence is the only one that can explain the increase in the last 100 years.

I don't need to understand the science in detail to know that increasing the concentration of one of the elements in the atmosphere without regard to its effect is a bad idea. If we endlessly bicker about its effects while doing nothing, then once the effects are known and proven, it may be too late to reverse them.

The fact is it had no effect in the past when it was much much higher. To assume that it does now is not just unscientific but absolutely ridiculous.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/historical_CO2.html

[Catchme]

Helping out the environment doesn't necessarilly pay the bills, if it pays the bills and is environmentally friendly I pursue it. ..Hemp, to be grown up to premium standards would require herbicides. That's the smallest problem, the ridiculous amt. of fertilizer needed and the fact that you would burn much more fuel growing it is an environmental problem in itself. Hemp will only become profitable if there is a stable mainstream demand for it, right now it's just too expensive and doesn't provide good enough returns. If people want Hemp to be grown, they should lay down some money. Until there is real money to be made in Hemp, the fields will stay as they are.

I recognized that real money needed to be invested into Hemp and stated that as a priority.

Again, Hemp for Jute and fibres does need fertilizers, the Hemp plantations for example of; Ben Franklyn's, and the prairie farmers of the homestead days did not use fertilizers, herbicides, nor pesticides, for their Hemp. Maybe some cow manure in the broken fields but that is it.

By people increasing pressure to provide environmentally friendly industry it will grow and thereby be a suppliment to farmer's incomes. And the products from hemp growth can move into several areas.

Cotton production is to hard on the earth and other natural fibres need to be utlized in its place. And that would either be increased flax, or hemp production, or both.

Once the fibres from hemp are utilized for textiles, tarps, or ropes, the cellulose can be used for paper production. This is a valuable non-acidic paper whose source is completely re-newable every year. The plants themselves not only save trees, they create CO2 sinks, thereby doubling CO2 absorbtion capabilities of the eco-system. Paper wrapping needs to start replacing plastic wrap.

Seeds that are not needed for the farmer for next year's crops can be sold for either bird seed or human consumption, either whole or in oil form.

The fine roots systems of Hemp replentish marginal or sandy soil, and the top soil layer, plus provide wind breaks.

Plastics made from vegtable oils are not biodegrable any more than fossil fuel plastics are.

Olive oil is by far superior to canola oil anyday, say nothing of the genetically modified nature of it.

[shoggoth]

We know that the CO2 levels in our atmosphere have gone up from 200 ppm to 320 ppm in the last 100 years, a higher concentration than has existed for the last 400 000 to 600 000 years.

I have yet to hear another explanation for this increase in concentration that makes sense. The human influence is the only one that can explain the increase in the last 100 years.

I don't need to understand the science in detail to know that increasing the concentration of one of the elements in the atmosphere without regard to its effect is a bad idea. If we endlessly bicker about its effects while doing nothing, then once the effects are known and proven, it may be too late to reverse them.

The fact is it had no effect in the past when it was much much higher. To assume that it does now is not just unscientific but absolutely ridiculous.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/historical_CO2.html

To think that page proves co2 has had no effect in the past is the only ridiculous thing