BBC Guide to Climate Change

Wow Ess, that is really kind of sad :( . Makes you wonder if the powers to be will wise up and realize we are on a path where the best case scenerio seems to be one where there is no nature left for people to enjoy and the worst case scenerio is there will be no people left to enjoy whats left of nature. All over RL Canada politicians are trying to outdo each other to prove who is "greener". Takes an threat election to make them remember the environment issue, and an election win to make them forget it! :rolleyes:

Yeah - that's sad, all right! :no:

You are the power that be. I think that voters like democracy so much because it gives them scapegoats for when they reap the windfall of their own shortsightedness.

If people actually wanted to save the environment rather than just make a fuss about it, the environment would be saved.

I don't think that is necessarily fair when you consider the weight that fossil fuels energy sources have in climate change. Production and distribution of fossil fuel energy sources are powers that be that have, in their self-interest, developed quasi self-sustaining power, that includes the ability to create it's own demand and even influence public opinion (backing scientists that refute data that conflicts with their business interests, funding school boards and ask them to reject showing "An Inconvenient Truth" in schools (which to this day I have sadly not yet seen), etc.

I think it will eventually be up to themselves or a power of equal size (governments) to accept and face the reality of the environmental factor. What politicians are discussing today all across the party spectrum is unfortunately mostly too little and too late.

The fact of the matter is, while I have an awesome respect for individual freedom and responsibility on this issue and others, and while I may also have doubts if individuals and consumers, (myself included) properly possess all required information or desire to make decisions with the environment at heart, I do not believe that they possess much of a choice to begin with.

For example, if I chose to buy a hybrid automobile, I would have to choose from a diminished array of options of brands and models, and upon purchase I would have to literally drive several hundreds of kms to refuel.

I still disagree. People present corporations like some evil external entity forcing them to buy stuff. I mean sure, corporate marketing departments do their darnedest to try to convince you that you lack a choice, but you do. You can always bring your dollar elsewhere. That's freedom and responsibility.

But the problem is that people will continue to not take a short term hit for a long term gain. This is an equilibrium, and a great example of this is the famous tragedy of the commons game. And sure, it is the role of a strong centralize government to regular this, but when you hamstring the government with the same mercurial whims as the voters (they want sensible environmental policy AND not have to sacrifice their way of life) they simply aren't really able to move.

Saving the environment means taking a cut to our standard of living. I fully believe that anyone trying to tell you otherwise is a snake oil salesman trying to sell you a magic cure. And I think that the vast majority of our population (not just in Canada, but world wide) is unwilling to do that, and the reigns of democracy are in their hands. Politicians chase the vote like corporations chase the dollar, and no matter how farseeing they are personally, I think that it wouldn't make any political sense do do other than what we've seen: contribute token amounts of money to the cause, glad handle accordingly, then criticize the next administration.

I think that the real change happens in the minds of the public, and I don't think that a critical mass of actual (rather than superficial) interest has formed yet.

Certainly not, when you see that much of the Western world has a tendency towards a "keep up with the Joneses" mentality--we want to continually raise our "standard of living" and have the things that our peers do.

This for me is the key phrase here.

I just don't believe that at all. We've been there before.

In the past every time primary energy sources shifted, we've seen a considerable rise in living standards. Take the transition from coal to oil at the dawn of the 20th century, for example. In the 1860's the hot topic of the day was questioning how Coal reserves would soon be depleted and how there were few prospects of petroleum presenting itself as a widespread energy source.

Coal drove the economy in that day, but it was only to be supplanted by petroleum as the energy source that would drive the economy, despite a constant increase in coal consumption and production.

There is no reason that something similar cannot happen with oil and fossil fuels in general. Man will never lift a finger for the environment if it means having to decrease living conditions. To say that saving the environment implies that our standards of living would have to plummet, besides being a message impossible to sell, is just does not add up to the facts.

I think that is an inexact comparison. Every time that we've seen a shift in the past, its because the fuel source has offered a benefit as an energy source in and of itself. For example, coal-power allowed vessels to carry their own means of propulsion giving rise to trains and steam ships that revolutionize commerce, allowing goods and people to flow through an entire country. It later leading to cheap electricity generation giving rise to a longer work day and higher productivity. Oil has give similar gives: cars, planes, ships that are able to cross oceans routinely.

So that's a different reason then our next shift, our next shift (if it comes) will be because we know that our current way of life is ruining the future. We don't currently have any energy sources that can offer comparable energy properties and the same price, and this means that power will be more expensive, leading to a less productivity and a lower quality of life. Not only power, but all the chemical by-products that are generated and dumped will have to be cut, various forms of resource collection will have to be banned, and so forth.

I cannot see any way that our lives will be better, at least in the short term. And sadly, I think that most policy is a knee-jerk reaction to the short term, because that's what people are mostly interested in. I think that Red hit the nail on the head. If everyone is thinking "Why should I decrease my standard of living if <insert nation> is not going to>" then no one will make the necessary personal sacrifice and thus will punish any politicians that will try to force them to.

Hydrogen my man, hydrogen. :)

The most common element in the universe. Clean and renewable energy source. It's essentially free (were it not for the costs of development and perhaps distribution) and nearly limitless energy.

But let's admit for analytical purposes that it is not possible to save the environment without our standards of living taking a few blows. I can't honestly imagine any intellectual or voluntary movement that could bring individuals and the economic cells we call families, to make this sacrifice willingly. I think at some point, at the bequest of governments, violence and brutality would have to enter the equation to bend people's wills.

Hydrogen, in compound, is uniquely common. The problem is that all our technology requires H_2, which is synthesized either from natural gas, methane, or coal (all of which produce carbon monoxide, indirectly a greenhouse gas). All 'clean' ways of generating H_2 at an industrial level (electrolysis, etc) are far off. Besides, electrolysis yields a net loss of energy. So you still need to generate the power, and H_2 is essentially a battery. And we already have more efficient batteries.

Plus, you generally need high pressured hydrogen for use in personal vehicles. Having high-pressured hydrogen under a car raises its on question.

I agree with this. Or merely flexing the force that the West is the best at, marketing and propaganda. I think we need to start selling ideas that are favourable to our survival as a species as a by-product of our culture. I think that we need to manipulate people into being environmental.

Oh, PS the easiest way to cut down on Global warming:

Have the country adopt vegetarianism. Livestock rearing contributes far more green house gasses than transportation. Our way of life could be virtually unchanged as we have sufficient sources of plant protein. However, even in this small life-style change, I think that you will find people completely unwilling to bend. We will continue to consume steak , hamburgers, lattés, and cheese in record quantities.

Suggestive information aka propaganda can only go so far I think. We would do better to phase out and change the base energy source of our entire civilization. This at least has some sort of historic precedent. While I'd dare to say that I'm willing to take a punch for the environment, I'd still hate to see a future where people are thrown in jail for doing exactly what they take for granted today.

There's tons of things people can do to reduce their carbon footprint right now, and now is the time that we need to be doing anything and everything we can. For example, Australia recently banned the use of incandescent light bulbs. It's a small sacrifice, and the cumulative energy savings will be astronomical, reducing their national production of green house gases by 4 million tonnes by 2012.

What you can do at home to reduce your share of greenhouse gas production

What you can do at work to reduce carbon emmissions

Go carbon neutral

Take action

Sign up for the nature challenge E-mail newsletter

Take the nature challenge

Send a message to Ottawa

E-mail message I recieved from Jack Layton after sending a message to Ottawa :

Thank you for sharing your concern for Canada's performance on
protecting our environment.

After so many years of federal inaction, everyday Canadians say the
environment is their #1 priority, and New Democrats are listening. The
NDP has a comprehensive plan to improve our environment and fight
climate change. Our action plan includes:

- Meeting Canada's commitments under the Kyoto protocol
- Developing a national sustainability plan
- Significantly increasing the responsibility of large industries to
reduce emissions
- Legislating a mandatory fuel efficiency standard that meets or exceeds
leading North American jurisdictions
- Ending subsidies to polluting industries

For detailed information on the NDP's plan for short and long term
action, please read the following links:

15 tough amendments to Clean Air Act
http://www.ndp.ca/page/4570

NDP's Climate Change Accountability Act
http://www.ndp.ca/page/4501

A Green Agenda for Canada
http://www.ndp.ca/page/4058

I appreciate your efforts to register your views with me. I hope I can
count on your support to make Parliament work on behalf of all
Canadians. All the best.

Sincerely,


Jack Layton, MP (Toronto-Danforth)
Leader, Canada's New Democrats

To catch up on recent news and issues, please visit http://www.ndp.ca or
subscribe to our e-mail bulletin, e-NDP, at subscribe@ndp.ca.

Good stuff. I've bookmarked all links for future reading.

Meanwhile, in the good ol' US of A...


http://www.herald-review.com/articles/2007...ews/1021491.txt

But the organization is already paying tax on the oil,(one would assume) so why should the Wetzel's have to pay tax again on it? Bureacracy gone mad, as my mother would say.