Yeah, the Oil industry bring a lot of cash, which is great, but this cash should be re-invested in the oil sand treatment system, right now it's destroying Alberta environment (fresh water use, forest destroy, air pollution, alouette...) and it makes the whole govt. shaky about establishing hard environment policies, but who knows who are Harper's major financial contributors... hehe.
Why can't he make it provincial base then, fund the provinces who want to reduce their emission, and leave those who don't alone, with the pollution revenues benefits that comes with it, to each their own. That should be how the Canada Federation works...
cuz pollution and emissions do not respect political borders
Come on....lol....and how about all the other scientist that totally disagree with all that Kyoto and Global Warming stuff ? It goes both ways...
So the scientist(which are alot of them) that don't buy into the Global warming (crap) don't have the scientific knowledge then?
Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case...
That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9)...
...The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case...
That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9)...
...The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
These articles are just leading nowhere , first it should be vulgarized for the mass, David Suzuki is an expert at doing this, i don't know why we don't hear much from him (medias conspiracies? hehe), second enough with the studies, it's time for policies, many peoples and countries do agree with all this, but are invisible when it comes to act, those are the one that should be leading the way (like Canada when the Libs were in power, but did nothing), there's no real model to follow right now. Just studies that tell people how and what to think, now tell them what to do.
"L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
we are pooched if alberta doesn't regulate their emissions
That's pretty negative, i think we could at least balance things up a bit, while the industries in Alberta are doing their things, they'll have to follow someday, and there's pressure coming from Alberta too, they're not all for the blind oil sand development. So while Alberta don't want to reduce their pollution, help other provinces to do so, need to begin somewhere, establish a method, show the way, start something, i don't know, but the current "it's Alberta's fault" arguments is not helping at all, let them do their business, and let's do ours. I know it's not our Premier vision though, he pretty much love the statu quo...
"L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
canada's economy is dependent on oil so what do you expect them to say?
recent discoveries in greenland have proven that water [from melting ice] is flowing down cracks and lubricating the base of the ice causing it to slide faster into the ocean than previously estimated.
That's pretty negative, i think we could at least balance things up a bit, while the industries in Alberta are doing their things, they'll have to follow someday, and there's pressure coming from Alberta too, they're not all for the blind oil sand development. So while Alberta don't want to reduce their pollution, help other provinces to do so, need to begin somewhere, establish a method, show the way, start something, i don't know, but the current "it's Alberta's fault" arguments is not helping at all, let them do their business, and let's do ours. I know it's not our Premier vision though, he pretty much love the statu quo...
it is the single largest area of emissions growth in canada ... many of those industries did have a plan in place to reduce emissions but scrapped it when harper said they don't need to ... but, at the end of the day - without regulated emissions - it won't happen ... so, my point is that while leaving it up to the provinces sounds great in principle - if we don't get alberta on board - we will not make significant gains ...
canada's economy is dependent on oil so what do you expect them to say?
recent discoveries in greenland have proven that water [from melting ice] is flowing down cracks and lubricating the base of the ice causing it to slide faster into the ocean than previously estimated.
So do you mean that it's time for Canada to invade Gröenland? hehe.
Canada in general is getting good taxes revenue from the Oil industries, but i don't think Canada's economy is dependent on oil (not yet), i think Alberta is, but it would be nice to have some numbers about all this. I also think our govt. would like this country to more dependent on the Oil revenu in the future, , that's why i don't expect any change of direction in this case, and that's why i'm asking, why not invest in the provinces who actually WANT to reduce their pollution emission? It just makes no sense to me...
"L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
it is the single largest area of emissions growth in canada ... many of those industries did have a plan in place to reduce emissions but scrapped it when harper said they don't need to ... but, at the end of the day - without regulated emissions - it won't happen ... so, my point is that while leaving it up to the provinces sounds great in principle - if we don't get alberta on board - we will not make significant gains ...
well, it would mean cut the funding for the polluting industries if they do want to continue their pollution emission (isn't that a part of the Kyoto accord?), take money out of their pockets, and give it to cleaner industries or to industries trying to get cleaner. Anyway i still think that Alberta Oil industry won't move and i understand the reasoning since their economy is booming, and the sad part is that they'll still receive full govt. funding in the future. I agree that we need policies, nationwide.
"L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
So do you mean that it's time for Canada to invade Gröenland? hehe.
Canada in general is getting good taxes revenue from the Oil industries, but i don't think Canada's economy is dependent on oil (not yet), i think Alberta is, but it would be nice to have some numbers about all this. I also think our govt. would like this country to more dependent on the Oil revenu in the future, , that's why i don't expect any change of direction in this case, and that's why i'm asking, why not invest in the provinces who actually WANT to reduce their pollution emission? It just makes no sense to me...
i'm ignorant to canada's other exports. 30 years ago; everyone i knew vacationed in canada for the fishing. then the canadian government started issuing warnings that you shouldn't eat the fish because of pollution due to the forestry industry. then acid rain started destroying the forests. all this here in the us too. i'm not singling out canada. so my question here is what other exports does canada have should the oil industry buckle? i feel the us will clearly dive into poverty as the ecomony is based on oil. thus bush's statements about the treaty hurting the american economy. it truely would.
i'm ignorant to canada's other exports. 30 years ago; everyone i knew vacationed in canada for the fishing. then the canadian government started issuing warnings that you shouldn't eat the fish because of pollution due to the forestry industry. then acid rain started destroying the forests. all this here in the us too. i'm not singling out canada. so my question here is what other exports does canada have should the oil industry buckle? i feel the us will clearly dive into poverty as the ecomony is based on oil. thus bush's statements about the treaty hurting the american economy. it truely would.
we could be a leader in green technologies from renewables to efficiency engineering ... but we are heavily resource based - forestry, mining and oil and gas ...
we could be a leader in green technologies from renewables to efficiency engineering ... but we are heavily resource based - forestry, mining and oil and gas ...
forestry; mining; oil and gas are all industries that destroy the planet. hopefully all of us can contribute to a cleaner earth.
forestry; mining; oil and gas are all industries that destroy the planet. hopefully all of us can contribute to a cleaner earth.
i dispute that foresty destroys the planet, at least to a certain degree. obviously old growth forests should not be logged but pine plantations are fine if they are re-planted. these industries employ a massive amount of people. do you just shut them down and cause a massive amount of unemployment overnight? not to mention bring down the canadian economy overnight?
The wind is blowing cold
Have we lost our way tonight?
Have we lost our hope to sorrow?
Feels like were all alone
Running further from what’s right
And there are no more heroes to follow
i dispute that foresty destroys the planet, at least to a certain degree. obviously old growth forests should not be logged but pine plantations are fine if they are re-planted. these industries employ a massive amount of people. do you just shut them down and cause a massive amount of unemployment overnight? not to mention bring down the canadian economy overnight?
our forestry industry is crumbling anyways ... like so many industries - the model isn't based on sustainability ... they are based on maximizing profits ...
i have no problem with any industry just so long as it is sustainable and true environmental costs are considered ...
total reverse psychology. "Say about them what they've said about you". Its like he''s pleading guilty to his own causes by making this statement. And those ads, pfft it makes the liberals look better. Harper is a fool, Ram a soother into baby baird mouth and accept the fact that monte solberg is the closest thing to a nazi canada has ever had in parliment, that man is a constant lie. Solberg is so good at it he never breaks that energy field (obviously supposing that becuase of this in other people's eyes he believes he comes across as a good man). OH, and the real reason we are in Afganistan is redemtion for the attacks on 911 not anything else that Harper shits out of his mouth. This is by far the worst batch of religious freaks and liers i have ever seen in Canadian parliment. OH and Harpers hidden agena? is becomeing more and more clear; He's not in it for the people, he's in it for the corporations. Money=controll=MoreMoney and money=power. THAT myfriends is Harpers hidden agenda. Just like the states. I just thank god we arn't YET involved with pushin our economy further by investing in weapons (besides the extra 2 boeing planes, if at all any of them. This is the start), when the cons trick us into thier majority, it will happen more. These guys LOVE the neocons in the states. I can easily see them fucking with the next election.
Comments
cuz pollution and emissions do not respect political borders
would be better than right now, i mean would be better than nothing... gotta start somewhere...
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case...
That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9)...
...The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
These articles are just leading nowhere , first it should be vulgarized for the mass, David Suzuki is an expert at doing this, i don't know why we don't hear much from him (medias conspiracies? hehe), second enough with the studies, it's time for policies, many peoples and countries do agree with all this, but are invisible when it comes to act, those are the one that should be leading the way (like Canada when the Libs were in power, but did nothing), there's no real model to follow right now. Just studies that tell people how and what to think, now tell them what to do.
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
we are pooched if alberta doesn't regulate their emissions
That's pretty negative, i think we could at least balance things up a bit, while the industries in Alberta are doing their things, they'll have to follow someday, and there's pressure coming from Alberta too, they're not all for the blind oil sand development. So while Alberta don't want to reduce their pollution, help other provinces to do so, need to begin somewhere, establish a method, show the way, start something, i don't know, but the current "it's Alberta's fault" arguments is not helping at all, let them do their business, and let's do ours. I know it's not our Premier vision though, he pretty much love the statu quo...
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
recent discoveries in greenland have proven that water [from melting ice] is flowing down cracks and lubricating the base of the ice causing it to slide faster into the ocean than previously estimated.
it is the single largest area of emissions growth in canada ... many of those industries did have a plan in place to reduce emissions but scrapped it when harper said they don't need to ... but, at the end of the day - without regulated emissions - it won't happen ... so, my point is that while leaving it up to the provinces sounds great in principle - if we don't get alberta on board - we will not make significant gains ...
So do you mean that it's time for Canada to invade Gröenland? hehe.
Canada in general is getting good taxes revenue from the Oil industries, but i don't think Canada's economy is dependent on oil (not yet), i think Alberta is, but it would be nice to have some numbers about all this. I also think our govt. would like this country to more dependent on the Oil revenu in the future, , that's why i don't expect any change of direction in this case, and that's why i'm asking, why not invest in the provinces who actually WANT to reduce their pollution emission? It just makes no sense to me...
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
well, it would mean cut the funding for the polluting industries if they do want to continue their pollution emission (isn't that a part of the Kyoto accord?), take money out of their pockets, and give it to cleaner industries or to industries trying to get cleaner. Anyway i still think that Alberta Oil industry won't move and i understand the reasoning since their economy is booming, and the sad part is that they'll still receive full govt. funding in the future. I agree that we need policies, nationwide.
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
i'm ignorant to canada's other exports. 30 years ago; everyone i knew vacationed in canada for the fishing. then the canadian government started issuing warnings that you shouldn't eat the fish because of pollution due to the forestry industry. then acid rain started destroying the forests. all this here in the us too. i'm not singling out canada. so my question here is what other exports does canada have should the oil industry buckle? i feel the us will clearly dive into poverty as the ecomony is based on oil. thus bush's statements about the treaty hurting the american economy. it truely would.
we could be a leader in green technologies from renewables to efficiency engineering ... but we are heavily resource based - forestry, mining and oil and gas ...
forestry; mining; oil and gas are all industries that destroy the planet. hopefully all of us can contribute to a cleaner earth.
i dispute that foresty destroys the planet, at least to a certain degree. obviously old growth forests should not be logged but pine plantations are fine if they are re-planted. these industries employ a massive amount of people. do you just shut them down and cause a massive amount of unemployment overnight? not to mention bring down the canadian economy overnight?
Have we lost our way tonight?
Have we lost our hope to sorrow?
Feels like were all alone
Running further from what’s right
And there are no more heroes to follow
So what are we becoming?
Where did we go wrong?
our forestry industry is crumbling anyways ... like so many industries - the model isn't based on sustainability ... they are based on maximizing profits ...
i have no problem with any industry just so long as it is sustainable and true environmental costs are considered ...