# Time for Harper to bite the bullet on climate



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

See if he follows the government panel recommendations. 



> *Advisory panel recommends carbon tax for Canada*
> Updated Mon. Jan. 7 2008 12:11 PM ET
> 
> CTV.ca News Staff
> ...


'Bout time Alberta started paying for using the atmosphere as a sewer.

This is going to put all parties on notice ti get it done NOW. 

This has been the problem all along - continual footdragging and delays by Harper and businesses cannot act to set up the planning to decarbon their industries.

_* business needs certainty from the government, he said.*_

Canada needs some governance at the federal level - not the kindergarden calamity we currently have.


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

I've got something Harper can bite, and it's not a bullet.

As long as a party that worships the bottom line is in power, any "action" on climate change will be mostly window dressing.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

The devil is in the details. A tax can mean all sorts of things and have all sorts of implications.

The questions I have are:

1. Who pays the tax? The consumer or the producer?
2. How is the tax calculated? Is it purely CO2 emissions, or the amount of emissions above a specified level?
3. Who is going to keep score and how? Who defines what the 2006 baseline is? Who pays to do such an assessment? How many people in Canada are actually qualified to do it?
4. What constitutes a carbon credit? Does planting a tree count? Some would say it does while others not. 
5. What is going to happen with the tax money that is collected? Who decides how is gets spent?

Until I know more details, it is pretty hard for me to support or reject this recommendation. 

I agree that we need to get moving on this now because there is a lot to take care of and consider. It could take years just to get such a system started.

I don't trust an international carbon trading system. I think we need to first get such a trading system started internally and then branch out once we figure out how to track, monitor and confirm.

At the end of the day I think cutting our emissions is quite feasible. I think in 10 years we will be surprised at all the new technologies and opportunities. The bureaucratic and administrative side will be as difficult to figure out as the technical side.


----------



## Dammacx (May 22, 2006)

All these studies and reports about meeting "Targets" is BS. 

First off, it is a band-aid solution. What we really need is just pure "common sense" and a way for people who only see the almighty bottom line to get on board with respecting the planet. Lets be honest, things this big don't happen unless there is money to be made. People that are against Carbon Emission credits can only see how much it will cost them to keep doing what they are doing. So instead of spending billions of dollars on forcing people to reach targets that won't even matter the way things are going why doesn't Government (All Levels) and big powerful organization invest in technologies that while when first deployed may seem expensive, but over time will save both companies and individuals money once they become widely accepted. Instead of peanallizing for doing wrong, lets try to reward for doing right.

It's kinda like a diet. A diet where you cut out a bunch of foods and you starve yourself in the end will fail and make you worse, but if you use common sense and eat healthy and think long term it will be with you for life. There isn't some magic number out there that will save "Us" - It is pure common sense. And I say "Us" and not the planet cause let's face it - the earth will go on in one form or another, what we are trying to do is keep it a nice place for us to live.

Carbon Credits would have been a nice idea if everyone had jumped on board - don't get me wrong. Every little bit helps. But lets face it, we are running in circles when it comes to that issue and the debate is taking away time and money that could be used on other ideas and solutions.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Lots of good old common sense in those last two posts Vandave and Dammacx. :clap: 

For the record, my belief is very simple:

Yes, global warming is real.

Yes, we need to take steps to reduce carbon emissions.

And finally, carbon credit trading is no guarantee that emissions get reduced. I believe we would be better off spending our dollars to reduce emissions at home where they can be monitored and controlled than sending cash to undeveloped countries.

I don't know why some people find that position so objectionable.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Vandave said:


> The devil is in the details. A tax can mean all sorts of things and have all sorts of implications.
> 
> The questions I have are:
> 
> ...


Ultimately, the consumer will end up paying the tax.

No matter where you sit on this issue I've always believed that little happens until you start charging people for it.

Sort of like throwing garbage out. If it's seen as 'free', then we'll just throw out what we want. The minute it costs us per bag, then wow people will start thinking about it.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Some good points Dammacx.

We have had progress. The debate has moved from 'if' to 'how'. I think most Canadians and all political parties are now on board that something needs to be done. It's just a question of how.

I think we need to take an economic approach to it. The downside of government doing everything is that everybody gets penalized regardless of their level and nature of consumption. I would rather that the 'Externiality' of a CO2 emissions be built into the price of a product (i.e. a tax or equivalent). That way, the full price of a product is accounted for an alternatives can be developed. It also creates an incentive for the producer / consumer to find improvements. If you are just charged a flat tax like everybody else, there is little incentive to change. 

I don't think we need government to head up research completely. There are plenty of proven technologies that already exist and many new ideas on the table. The problem right now is that they are not cost competive because some products don't incur the price of the CO2 externiality. If government is going to help, then I think partial funding or tax breaks is the way to do it.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> Ultimately, the consumer will end up paying the tax.


Yes, that is definitely the case. But that wasn't what I was getting at in my question.

My question was about the logistics of implementing a tax. How do we account for CO2 emissions? Is it at the point of consumption (i.e. burning it in your car), or it is at the point of production (i.e. refining a litre of gas)?

MacDoc gets all angry at Alberta, but how much are they really responsible for? Is he mad about CO2 generated in the collection of hydrocarbons (e.g. pumping it out the ground), the transport of hydrocarbons in a pipeline (e.g. to a refinery out of Alberta) or the consumption of hydrocarbons by a car (e.g. MacDoc driving to work)? How much hydrocarbon is consumed in the production of hydrocarbons? It is probably on the order of 10% or less. Does it make sense to be so mad at Alberta in this context (i.e. the consumer of hydrocarbons being the most responsible) and how does that make an Albertan any different than somebody from Ontario?

This isn't cut and dry and pointing fingers at some provinces isn't going to solve the problem.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Years to put it in place yeah right. 

This is not rocket science - how the hell do you think the gov collects fuel taxes and energy royalties now.

Producers pay carbon tax on the carbon footprint of their production just as any manufacturer would for carbon based energy use.

Consumers and industries pay at the fuel pump or energy bill. ( coal bill etc for industry ) The carbon content of the major fuels are known.

There are already fuel surtaxes on flying and shipping.

You phase in the obvious ones, coal, gas, oil, and the tar sands production then roll it out further.

Much will be caught right at the energy level anyway.

You think maybe even you could figure tout how to tax this 

This isn't current but just an example.

Petroleum industry - 
16,600 Kilotonnes (kt) Carbon Dioxide (CO2) equivalent
31%

Total household, including vehicle 
11,800 Kilotonnes (kt) Carbon Dioxide (CO2) equivalent
22%

Commercial buildings 
4,600 Kilotonnes (kt) Carbon Dioxide (CO2) equivalent

Sign up for Bullfrog - no carbon tax. 

Lower your carbon based energy use, lower your carbon tax.

Incentive is built in right across the board.

For retail products it will take a bit longer to assign a life cycle carbon content but you would go from major source ie paper at source, glass at source etc.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc, why do you constantly have to attack people? Why can't you be civil like ehMax has asked numerous times?

Years? Well, the Liberals has 13 years and did... nothing... So ya, I think it could take a number of years to get the system moving. Have you ever been involved in the creation of environmental legislation? I have. It takes a significant amount of time and effort to get everybody at the table and to move forward. There is more to it than simply collecting a tax.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Years? Well, the Liberals has 13 years and did... nothing...


This is a lie.
They implemented legislation that the Conservatives killed then eventually put much of it back in place. You can't say they did nothing when the Conservatives scrapped what little they did do right after they finally did it. It is dishonest. I'll add the Conservatives are doing their damnedest to do nothing themselves so to frame things this way is nothing short of hypocritical. And this is from someone who has never voted Liberal and probably never will.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

martman said:


> This is a lie.
> They implemented legislation that the Conservatives killed then eventually put much of it back in place. You can't say they did nothing when the Conservatives scrapped what little they did do right after they finally did it. It is dishonest. I'll add the Conservatives are doing their damnedest to do nothing themselves so to frame things this way is nothing short of hypocritical. And this is from someone who has never voted Liberal and probably never will.


How is it hypocritical? Am I the Conservative Party? I support action on climate change and have always held this position. 

The fact is that emissions under the Liberal Party increased substantially during their mandate although they said climate change action was a priority in their 1993 Red Book.

The FACT is that the Conservatives are the first party is power federally to pass climate change legislation.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Vandave said:


> The FACT is that the Conservatives are the first party is power federally to pass climate change legislation.


:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: 
:clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I think a carbon tax is the only way to get our society to make the significant cuts that have to be made in our carbon usage. I think that once people see the opportunities for saving money by orienting themselves to less carbon intensive lifestyles the reductions will come a lot quicker than any other method.

Two things that I think are important about its implementation: A: it has to be revenue neutral to a large degree. So the extra money the government receives in carbon taxes should be ploughed back into other tax reductions. Those who choose to go low carbon will then have a chance to reduce their taxes or at least not see their total taxes go up. Those who continue to waste energy will have to pay for it. Companies that go low carbon will have competitive advantages over those that don't. Some companies have already seen the wisdom of this and can see where the wind is blowing.

B: It must be phased in gradually with a clear timeline showing when and how it will be ramped up, to give people the time to adjust. But it has to be started soon, because the delays have gone on too long.

Carbon taxation lets the market and people decide how and when they will reduce their own footprint. It will push innovation and capital into low carbon businesses and technology as these become economically more competitive with carbon intensive businesses and technology.

Crap, while typing this I just hear on the radio that jerkwad Baird has categorically rejected the specific recommendation of carbon taxation, touting his do-nothing window dressing approach instead. I figured they would have had the brains at least to pretend to be looking at it. Must have been a few quick and nasty phone calls made to Harper today from their oil industry masters.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Election time.

So people have a sense of what it would add to their yearly costs.



> In 2006 Treasury engaged Geoff Sinclair, a UK-based economic consultant, to provide an updated figure for the carbon price. The figure derived was $US9.65/tonne. This was peer-reviewed by the Allen Consulting Group. The Sinclair report and the Allen Consulting Group peer review of the Sinclair report (both August 2006) are available below.
> 
> The Treasury closely followed Mr Sinclair's methodology in the 2007 update of the carbon price. The price estimate based on current market conditions and practices as at 30 June 2007 is US$11.90. This was peer reviewed by the Allen Consulting Group and was considered to be robust.
> 
> Due to increased demand for carbon price information, an interim update has been produced to reflect current market conditions and practices as at November 2007. The figure derived is €11.13.


Carbon Price Information Releases - New Zealand's Liability Under the Kyoto Protocol - Treasury

Canadians emit about 23 tons per person.

So roughly about $350 per year per person. .10 cents a day at current market prices.
( if we pull the exported carbon to the US out of this it will drop about 15% as the tar sands are the biggest emitter)

Now just how crippling is THAT??!!
As the Stern report indicates....if we do it now - the cost is marginal - and if there was a carbon tax on now I would have saved about $180 of that tax for the household by having Green Power.

So the incentive is there.

Who thinks putting a surcharge on the oil sands alone can make this revenue neutral for Canada


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I think a carbon tax is the only way to get our society to make the significant cuts that have to be made in our carbon usage. I think that once people see the opportunities for saving money by orienting themselves to less carbon intensive lifestyles the reductions will come a lot quicker than any other method.
> 
> Two things that I think are important about its implementation: A: it has to be revenue neutral to a large degree. So the extra money the government receives in carbon taxes should be ploughed back into other tax reductions. Those who choose to go low carbon will then have a chance to reduce their taxes or at least not see their total taxes go up. Those who continue to waste energy will have to pay for it. Companies that go low carbon will have competitive advantages over those that don't. Some companies have already seen the wisdom of this and can see where the wind is blowing.
> 
> ...


Excellent post GA! I'm a born and raised ******* Albertan Eco-vandal and even I have a hard time finding anything to disagree with here!


MacDoc said:


> 'Bout time Alberta started paying for using the atmosphere as a sewer.


Alberta isn't the only province "using the atmosphere as a sewer" - I suspect that other regions and industries contribute to the problem as well. For example, I expect the auto industry in Southern Ontario has an impact, both through the actual production of cars and through the fuel used by large gas guzzlers (such as the Acura MDX, Chrysler 300, and Chevrolet Silverado) that are produced there.

Given the recent problems with the high Canadian dollar, declining US demand, etc. I expect that this sector will be hit particularly hard by any attempt to introduce a carbon tax - but if we are serious about introducing tough measures to reduce our carbon footprint no industry or region should be exempt.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

martman said:


> This is a lie.
> They implemented legislation that the Conservatives killed then eventually put much of it back in place. You can't say they did nothing when the Conservatives scrapped what little they did do right after they finally did it. It is dishonest. I'll add the Conservatives are doing their damnedest to do nothing themselves so to frame things this way is nothing short of hypocritical. And this is from someone who has never voted Liberal and probably never will.


ah. A little bit of truth. I sooo tired of hearing the conservative mantra trying to convince people the liberals did nothing, buuuut the conservatives will do so much.

So far, really, the conservatives have done nothing but lie.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

martman said:


> :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:
> :clap: :clap: :clap:


For the record, I meant Regulations, rather than passing an Act.

The Liberals did not institute air quality targets which is obviously a big part of the reason our emissions kept going up under their government.

You can't escape the fact that the Conservatives are the first to do this.

Anyways I don't really care about what happened in the past. We need to move beyond that and start getting something done.

When people like MacDoc and yourself lash out at allies who support climate change regulation (i.e. me), I fear we have a long way to go.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Vandave said:


> For the record, I meant Regulations, rather than passing an Act.
> 
> The Liberals did not institute air quality targets which is obviously a big part of the reason our emissions kept going up under their government.
> 
> ...


I think the conservatives could do well to take your advice as well.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Canadians emit about 23 tons per person.
> 
> So roughly about $350 per year per person. .10 cents a day at current market prices.


My math makes $350/year/person closer to $1.00 per day or ten times that figure.

One hopes the math on carbon credit trading is not nearly so far off the mark. If it is, my fear of it being a useless exercise is now compounded by ten times.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yes $1 a day- what's worth for a clean environment. You don't care Sinc you'd rather reap your money off the Alberta sewer pipe.

Baird and Harper......phrase comes to mind all hat no cattle.

They ask for expert advice and DO NOTHING.

Time to go.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> You don't care Sinc you'd rather reap your money off the Alberta sewer pipe.


You know MacDoc, I am getting tired of the personal attacks. Seems others are too:



Vandave said:


> MacDoc, why do you constantly have to attack people? Why can't you be civil like ehMax has asked numerous times?



Why can't you state an opinion without the jabs?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

So a clever politician has a MAJOR ISSUE that he's uncomfortable with and he's written some things he perhaps now regrets and really can't get the wider public to BELIEVE he is now a CHANGED MAN

Being a clever politician he has a panel of experts determine the best way to deal with the major issue.

That way it's not the clever politician's idea but the "experts", so he didn't come up with it. Hey look - we trust the experts right...we're smart.

Expert panel comes up with a solution to the MAJOR ISSUE clever politician is VERY uncomfortable with. But hey it's not HIS idea and it might win praise and VOTES! 

Clever politician happens to have cut some $12 billion in taxes despite other "experts" advice but that was HIS idea and he wanted to keep a promise. We're smart and we keep promises..right.

Truly clever politician muses for a bit and realizes the expert panel idea will bring $10 billion back in dealing with the MAJOR ISSUE, about $350 a year for each citizen and win MUCH praise for being such a clever fellow to set up a revenue neutral program that solves his perception problem and restore his public image mightily.

INSTEAD, not so clever politician sends even less clever politician to announce NEVER!!!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *The report's recommendations won praise both from environmental groups and big business.*
> 
> "The NRTEE (panel) has done all Canadians a valuable service in setting out the key principles that should guide our country's efforts to address the climate-change challenge," said Tom d'Aquino, president of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives.
> 
> ...


So the greens on side, big biz on side, the petroleum industry on side.......

NO EXCUSE.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

SINC said:


> Why can't you state an opinion without the jabs?


That is the second time he has ignored this question.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MacDoc said:


> Being a clever politician he has a panel of experts determine the best way to deal with the major issue.


It was the whole Royal Commission junk without the special terminology; just another example of political cronyism that cripples the system.

Instead of all of the insults - we do have to take a hard look at those things that are the major causes of pollution, and that is waste. We waste energy. We allow GM, Ford and Chrysler to produce their stone ages engines, so long as we tack on enough "smog devices" so "it looks clean". But it isn't, and in today's world, we have no need for fuel thirsty monster V8 engines. And we have to look at the number of trucks that are on the roads. Why do we have so many trucks now, when we didn't have that many twenty years ago? We do not need "expert panels" to come to the conclusions that we need, because it is so simple: not very many people wish to move away from those things that they treasure, even though they waste resources, because "we have the money and can do whatever with it."

Perhaps this year, if the pundits are correct and we see $200 / barrel crude oil, things may change. But I do doubt it. I doubt that $200 oil will even change the public's quest for large wasteful automobiles. And no government has the willpower to stand up to the Corporates and demand that cars meet tough standards for pollution, serviceability and mileage. Nor does the government have the gumption to stand up to the land developer who destroys agricultural land. Nor can they see a day when we have to actually use technology to "telecommute", rather than using it to get ripped off on eBay or downloading porn...

Even worse is the notion that it is a "right" to jump into an airplane and fly to the Caribbean for a shoddy week long holiday. Cars make surface smog, while aircraft inject vast amounts of pollution directly into those regions of the sky that contain the ozone layer that protects us. Scrap the old V8 clunker and nix that vacation to Hedonism - those are the steps that each and every one of us needs to make in order to "save the environment".

The Climate is not really an election issue. If it was, the Green Party would have actually won a substantial number of votes and formed the government. Harper could choose to shut down the biggest polluter that we have, the Oil Sands, but they are now obscenely profitable, and profits are what pays the working man.



> Clever politician happens to have cut some $12 billion in taxes despite other "experts" advice but that was HIS idea and he wanted to keep a promise. We're smart and we keep promises..right.


If you want to pay more taxes, then by all means do. Our tax rates are far too high, and our economy has been crumbling because of it. Besides, money does not fix the climate. The only thing that can save the climate, if indeed we are causing the warming we are currently experiencing, is for everyone to make those changes in their own life. Scrap the ancient V8 monster, buy something reasonable and choose not to drive three hours to work everyday. If everyone did these steps, things would change quickly. But the politicians know better. They understand greed, and how to manipulate things to cater to the greed that gets them elected in the first place.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

This is nowhere near as simple as you seem to think it is MacDoc. I posted a whole bunch of questions that you have overlooked or not considered. Answering these questions and getting stakeholders onboard is far from trivial. Again, the devil is in the details. Agreeing to a tax in principle is a start, but there is a lot of work to do between that and implementation. LOTS. It is crucial that we get this right. What would happen to public support should the government create a fiasco out of such a tax? Don't think it can happen? Well, let's look at the record of the federal government in managing our money and affairs. 

I would rather spend a couple years getting this right rather than starting in a poorly thought out ad hoc way. Global warming is a decade to century scale problem. We need to act, but this is not imminent when viewed in the scale of years. 

If we don't get it right the first time, we will waste decades of effort. 

It is no different than undertaking any type of project whether it be engineering or construction. The more time you spend up front planning and preparing, the more time and cost you save at the back end. Let's 'measure twice and cut once'. You want to take a damn chainsaw to this.

This is in no way an excuse to delay action. Rather, we should have specific timelines for soliciting input from stakeholders and developing specific legislation. 

Why you consider this to be so controversial and why you continue to attack allies like myself is totally beyond me. We need consensus, not partisan hackery.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> We waste energy. We allow GM, Ford and Chrysler to produce their stone ages engines, so long as we tack on enough "smog devices" so "it looks clean". But it isn't, and in today's world, we have no need for fuel thirsty monster V8 engines.


GM, Ford and Chrysler aren't the only ones producing massive gas guzzlers - pretty much everyone is doing so now days because the public wants behemoths such as the Toyota Sequoia, Nissan Armada, etc.

I do agree that people need to consider the environment and should avoid driving large wasteful vehicles they don't need - but I don't think we can single out the "domestic" brands as the only producers of gas hogs.

I also don't think that an outright ban on light trucks is appropriate, as some people legitimately need the ability to tow, haul or go off road. I'm not sure how we can avoid penalizing these people while at the same time discouraging others who want to use their Toyota Tundra to go to the corner store to buy a carton of milk...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

It seems we are going “nowhere fast” with both major parties rejecting the NRT proposals:

“OTTAWA - The federal government rejected an advisory panel's recommendation to implement a carbon tax on Monday while opposition parties opened the door to the idea in response to advice that the levy could lead the way to deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, a panel of Canadians from environmental groups and the business world, suggested that Canada could achieve a 65-per-cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 by acting as soon as possible with measures that would put a price on activities that result in the release of the gases in the atmosphere.

The panel suggested the government could set this price either by slapping a carbon tax on emissions or by setting a cap on the level of industrial emissions and forcing companies that exceed their limit to buy credits from other companies in a cap-and-trade system.

It also said the costs of setting a price on carbon would result in a minimal impact on the economy, which it assumes will grow by an average annual rate of two per cent.
Although the Harper government asked the roundtable for its advice in 2006, Environment Minister John Baird dismissed the carbon tax proposal as a "Liberal idea," explaining that he had already addressed the concerns raised in the report by introducing a federal green plan that sets a price on carbon emissions.

*The federal Liberals also rejected the panel's proposal to immediately introduce a new carbon tax,* explaining that they supported the concept of a cap-and- trade system, which they claimed would ensure businesses -- not consumers -- would shoulder the burden of reducing emissions. *The businesses would presumably not pass their costs onto consumers. Most economists consider that unlikely.”*

Government lets air out of carbon tax plan


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

for once, I agree with you sinc.

Or maybe this is twice I don't recall.


----------



## Dammacx (May 22, 2006)

Vandave said:


> The downside of government doing everything is that everybody gets penalized regardless of their level and nature of consumption.


Thanx Vandave, the other drawback of the government being involved is that people have a knee jerk reaction to that. Its like oh here is another part of our lives we need controlled by the government.

I truly wish we could just make things work, but the way the world is set up and with money being the driving force I just think the way we get the fastest results with anything is that if you make it worth while (money wise) to do something be either saving or making more money than the world will jump on board faster. Watch how fast laws get changed or things get done when there is money to be made compared to when it is just the right thing to do. As witnessed in the past, fines or penalties don't usually work for the big companies cause they have deep pockets and they see it as a cost of business and no government will ever make the fine high enough. I know there is a lot of people that want to "Just do the right thing" but unfortunately they don't run the companies and organizations that are causing the problem.

Just for the record, I hate the way the world is driven by money - I just think of how far ahead we could be if money wasn't the object and it makes me sick. But that's the reality of the time we live in. Of course I am sure there are others that could argue that we wouldn't have some things we have if not for the desire for money. But thats a whole other discussion. LOL


----------



## quipu (Jul 18, 2003)

The concern I have related to a carbon "tax" is that the government can easily get dependent on it. Anytime addition revenue is needed for other programs the easy solution is to raise the "carbon tax".

We have seen how the government has become addicted to booze, tobacco, and gambling revenue. My fear is we will now get hooked on carbon.

Let's also remember that income tax was originally introduced as a temporary measure to support the war effort at the end of WW1. And we haven't managed to wean ourselves off that one in almost 100 years.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

PenguinBoy said:


> GM, Ford and Chrysler aren't the only ones producing massive gas guzzlers - pretty much everyone is doing so now days because the public wants behemoths such as the Toyota Sequoia, Nissan Armada, etc.


But unlike the Big Three, the Japanese have a full stable of highly reliable and excellent performing 4 cylinder engines. GM is a joke, they took all of their old engines, stuffed some smog devices on them, and sell them as "Eco-Tec". Ford should know better because they make high quality and high performance cars in Europe, but can't seem to do so here. And Chrysler never had a decent engine after the Slant-6, just the cheap junk they put in the compostable Neon. All Japanese manufacturers offer efficient, clean, good performing 4's, in a range of sizes to fit the situation. And how come Volkswagen is the only maker with a Diesel that gets excellent mileage? The Big-3, well, their efforts are mostly directed at saving their dimes and squeezing yet another year out of their forty year old tooling. And Toyota did create the MegaCruiser, which could have taken on the Hummer, but they chose not to market it because no one in Japan could afford a drive to the variety store...



> I'm not sure how we can avoid penalizing these people while at the same time discouraging others who want to use their Toyota Tundra to go to the corner store to buy a carton of milk...


I don't think we need to do it by penalizing, because it would be unenforcible. We need to re-engineer the working world, so that people do not need to take the two hour commute to work every day. Half of this neighbourhood takes the crazy commute, as there are few jobs in The Hammer. There is ample land for industry, but it is all controlled by the money grubbing developers, and the political scumballs at City Hall. People need to make the change themselves. Car-pooling saves much fuel, and I know a number of people that do this at great savings. And a few people I know have even quit good paying jobs because, factoring all of the time commuting, waiting for buses and trains, they were making less per hour than they could make here. And people should just walk to the store for milk...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Just listening to a member from the advisory panel on the CBC-BC radio talking about a carbon tax. He makes a very convincing argument. (Edit: His name is Mark Jaccard.)

The important point to remember, which was emphasized by early Green Parties around the world in the 80s, is that this is "tax shifting". The idea is not to add to the burden of taxes, so it is important that there are tax reductions elsewhere to make this revenue neutral.

This is a carrot and stick approach. Many of us because of our awareness of environmental issues have sought to voluntarily reduce our footprints both regarding carbon emissions and other environmental issues. But this voluntary reduction is only a drop in the bucket of what is needed if we are have any effect on climate change before it's too late. Unfortunately most of us will only do so much out of noble intentions. We need rewards and consequences to really alter our lifestyles.

If with carbon taxes in place we can see rewards and savings by doing things to reduce our carbon emissions, we will flock to those things in huge numbers. If we start to see economic consequences to continuing in high carbon behaviours most of us will try to do whatever we can to avoid those consequences, unless we're so rich that it doesn't matter, but those folks are a small minority of the population. This applies both to private individuals all the way to major corporations.

The fellow on the radio made the point that most of the people appointed to the panel were conservative, business, economic-oriented types that came up with this recommendation. Their point is that our atmosphere is presently free for individuals and businesses to pump carbon into at whatever rate they choose. If we want to attempt to head off climate change in any serious way it is essential that there is a cost put to pumping carbon into the atmosphere. A carbon tax does this most effectively.

I'll be writing my Conservative MP tomorrow and sending a copy to the Environment Minister in support of the carbon tax recommendation and I would suggest others do the same. I'm getting so sick of this government disingenuously yakking about climate change without taking the issue seriously.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SFU professor Mark Jaccard explains a carbon tax in this YouTube video. Lousy audio but a great primer on the subject. Very sensible and reasonable presentation.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> most of the people appointed to the panel were conservative, business, economic-oriented types that came up with this recommendation. Their point is that our atmosphere is presently free for individuals and businesses to pump carbon into at whatever rate they choose. If we want to attempt to head off climate change in any serious way it is essential that there is a cost put to pumping carbon into the atmosphere. A carbon tax does this most effectively.


Exactly......

THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE...you guys dither as much as Martin.

Alberta is freely pissing into the atmosphere and NL is not allowed to do the same into the ocean.

There is a COST to that.!!!!!!

You waffle and make excuses just like Harper ......the carbon tax based on current emissions by Canadians would be LESS than the idiotic GST cut he just made.
It's revenue neutral as a result and sets up the market the businesses WANT,

WHY the HELL do you think big business and even the petroleum companies are in support of it.
All they want is a level playing field and to get on with it.

The guys on that panel were not tree huggers.....no way shape or form.

But polluters MUST pay. NOW. 

The longer the delay the worse the cost down the road...study study study......Harper can do something as stupid as a GST cut with the stroke of a pen....lots of thought into that....sure right.

Now you want more studies............THIS IS NOT HARD. Every single polluter buys and uses fossil fuels directly or indirectly, is billed for it and the carbon tax is based on that. There are billing and tax flow streams on all fossil fuel already.

The panel says it, big biz says it, the tree huggers agree....but you guys......hopeless. Just flat out pathetic.

•••

Albertans????......deserve to be dissed loud and long. They have no provincial sales tax ..WHY??? ....... every single one of them is benefitting by their government being an unrepentant, unapologetic major polluter that is a disgrace to the nation.

AND THERE IS NO EXCUSE.

Polluter pays........


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Why another set of attacks against fellow ehMacers and countrymen?

This is civil discussion?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

SINC said:


> Why another set of personal attacks against fellow ehMacers and countrymen?
> 
> This is civil discussion?


Yes, this is quite sad.

MacDoc, why don't you actually read what people post and actually consider their points of view? 

I raised a whole bunch of questions that you are unwilling to answer and instead go on the attack. You talk constantly about the political parties not co-operating in Ottawa. Do you not see the irony and hypocrisy in your approach? You attack people who support your viewpoint and for asking questions. I think it is more than reasonable to ask how such a tax would work. Why is that so controversial to you? Why is it so controversial to suggest that we get this right the first time?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I didn't see any personal attacks from macdoc. What I see is pure frustration that a government could be so damn stupid and allow a province to continue dumping while setting limits to others. 

As was already posted, this isn't liberal socialist tree hugging wackos who are calling for this to happen. 

Enough with the studies and more delay tactics. Harper promised ACTION, not more studies. And it's high time he delivered.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Albertans????......deserve to be dissed loud and long. They have no provincial sales tax ..WHY??? ....... every single one of them is benefitting by their government being an unrepentant, unapologetic major polluter that is a disgrace to the nation.


groovetube, if that is not defined as an attack on hundreds of thousands of regular Albertans who have had no part in what their government has done, I need a new dictionary.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

it's a well founded criticism. Hell I've weathered center of the universe as well as all kinds of attacks for the mere fact I happen to live in Toronto for years. And I didn't take it personally.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> I didn't see any personal attacks from macdoc.


Here are some examples:



MacDoc said:


> This is not rocket science - how the hell do you think the gov collects fuel taxes and energy royalties now.





MacDoc said:


> You think maybe even you could figure tout how to tax this





MacDoc said:


> THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE...you guys dither as much as Martin.





MacDoc said:


> The panel says it, big biz says it, the tree huggers agree....but you guys......hopeless. Just flat out pathetic


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

oh please.

Do you want your pity party now?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> oh please.
> 
> Do you want your pity party now?


Did I ask for pity? No, I simply asked for an explanation from MacDoc. 

You denied he said anything personal. I think the quotes above show otherwise.

I can play the mudslinging game as well. If I had to choose between the two, I would rather have a civil conversation, as does the owner of this website.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Vandave said:


> Here are some examples:


MacDoc basically called you stupid and pathetic. I'd say those comments qualify as personal attacks. 
Its sad he feel's the need to do that to make his point. Especially coming from an intelligent guy like him I'd have thought those tactics would be beneath him.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## quipu (Jul 18, 2003)

groovetube said:


> Hell I've weathered center of the universe as well as all kinds of attacks for the mere fact I happen to live in Toronto for years. And I didn't take it personally.


You may not take it personally but many people in Toronto do - including myself.

You are suggesting that it's okay to insult other people if you're being insulted yourself. That's a pretty slippery slope.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Frankly, I'm tired of the COTU's honour being denigrated by people who call it "Toronto." It's shameful and it simply must stop.

Seriously, Torontonians who get so easily riled worry me... a little sense of humour goes a long way.

Okay, excuse me - had to get that off my chest. Back to whatever this thread is ostensibly about...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Max said:


> Back to whatever this thread is ostensibly about...


I forgot ... it was so many posts ago ... oh yeah, the National Roundtable on the Environment's recommendations on climate change action.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

quipu said:


> You may not take it personally but many people in Toronto do - including myself.
> 
> You are suggesting that it's okay to insult other people if you're being insulted yourself. That's a pretty slippery slope.


holy smokes people.

Ok it's a toasty thread, but keep your hats on for god's sake. As long as no line gets crossed relax.

I don't take the Toronto insults personally and they are many because I don't care. It's often funny. If you can't laugh at yourself and you take yourself too seriously, it's time to have a drink.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *Us and the Earth: a Faustian bargain*
> 
> ROBERT GIRVAN
> January 9, 2008 at 12:39 AM EST
> ...


Front page on the Globe :clap:
globeandmail.com: Us and the Earth: a Faustian bargain

There IS no excuse.......


----------



## quipu (Jul 18, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> The murder of the old couple — and Faust's willful blindness to the destructive underside of his noble plans — reminds us of the destructive underside of the West's astonishing achievement.


Why is it that "the West" is consistently singled out as the only guilty party in this eco-debate?

Having travelled extensively in Eastern Europe I know that they are as guilty - or more guilty - of a blatant disregard for the environment. Russia, China, India, and Africa are all examples of regions that place concern for the environment way down the list of concerns, and are some of the largest polluters.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

quipu said:


> Why is it that "the West" is consistently singled out as the only guilty party in this eco-debate?
> 
> Having travelled extensively in Eastern Europe I know that they are as guilty - or more guilty - of a blatant disregard for the environment. Russia, China, India, and Africa are all examples of regions that place concern for the environment way down the list of concerns, and are some of the largest polluters.


Because the west pollutes even more than them. Also because we live in the west so we are more to blame for the west's pollution and have more influence here. It is not rocket science people.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The western industrial nations over the last 250 years are there primary source of the CO2 emission build up and they built their wealth and infrastructure on that basis.

None of those you mentioned have the same historical pollution with the exception of Russia in the 20th century.
The G8 has the resources to both drastically reduce their CO2 footprint and to aid others in doing so just as happened with SO2 and ozone depleting chemicals.

India and China are emerging nations and rightfully can say - "why should they suffer in their nation building when the G8 did not. "
Ironically tho China is showing more leadership than the US or Canada federally and just invested $1.4 billion in fusion. China knows it MUST clean up or have a smoggy desert left to live in.

There is no excuse particularly from Canada....all I hear from the right is dodging, finger pointing, excuses for not acting - even when everyone else is onside INCLUDING the petroleum industry and big business......it's just plain pathetic.

Reality is, they've got their mouth around the sewer pipe free lunch coming out of Alberta. 
TANSTAAFL.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Not like I'm alone on the oil sands and Alberta's negligence.



> *Environmentalists attack airlines over oil sands fuel*
> THE CANADIAN PRESS
> 
> One of the largest environmental groups in the United States wants to ground the growing use by American and Canadian airlines of fuel derived from Alberta's oilsands.
> ...


sewer profits.......TANSTAAFL


----------



## Carl (Jun 7, 2003)

Probably one of the few things I agree with the Conservatives on. No carbon tax.
All that does is reduce consumption, which then ripples through the economy. What if you had to cut your computer usage by 50% tomorrow? Or pay a tax if you used it more than 2 hours a day? If you make your living using a computer, it doesn't make sense.
The technology exists to do the same things we do now using less power. Canada spends very little on implementing this.
We have to innovate out of this problem. There are already huge opportunities in the venture capital sector for businesses with energy alternative/saving technologies. This creates new business, employs people and grows the economy, all the while, reducing carbon.
If we just used conservation as a tool, then we would have stop growth for it to have an effect. Not very smart economics. Trust me, if business decides there is money to be made in producing energy efficient technology, they won't mess around. OK, well, if they are GM or Ford, then maybe, but the the big corporations are dinosaurs. I think the 21st century will be dominated by entrepreneurs in this sector, much like the dotcom boom was dominated by garage startups. Hopefully, it will have longer legs though.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

How Dare You!!

No Excuses Carl! None!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Umm did you actually read the article??

*The carbon tax is supported by big business and the petroleum industry.* It sets up the level playing field and puts the cost of carbon emission where it belongs on those that use it.

_So all of sudden the green technology instantly becomes more competitive as the correct costs are places on carbon pollution_
The tax provides the incentive for switching to lower carbon solutions and penalizes, correctly, those that don't.

Let's take an existing case.

I buy carbon zero power through Bullfrog, it costs a bit more.

If there were a carbon tax on non green power - that gap would lower or disappear or even reverse the other way - more green power projects, more money to technology and more people to move to zero carbon power sources.

But right now carbon producers are getting a free ride.

•••

I thought this might happen. Command economies can move very quickly.
China HAS to clean up.
China knows there is money to be made in the technology.



> *China poised to lead in renewable energy*
> (Agencies)
> Updated: 2008-01-10 10:52
> 
> ...


no excuse......


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Carl said:


> Probably one of the few things I agree with the Conservatives on. No carbon tax.
> All that does is reduce consumption, which then ripples through the economy. What if you had to cut your computer usage by 50% tomorrow? Or pay a tax if you used it more than 2 hours a day? If you make your living using a computer, it doesn't make sense.
> The technology exists to do the same things we do now using less power. Canada spends very little on implementing this.
> We have to innovate out of this problem. There are already huge opportunities in the venture capital sector for businesses with energy alternative/saving technologies. This creates new business, employs people and grows the economy, all the while, reducing carbon.
> If we just used conservation as a tool, then we would have stop growth for it to have an effect. Not very smart economics. Trust me, if business decides there is money to be made in producing energy efficient technology, they won't mess around. OK, well, if they are GM or Ford, then maybe, but the the big corporations are dinosaurs. I think the 21st century will be dominated by entrepreneurs in this sector, much like the dotcom boom was dominated by garage startups. Hopefully, it will have longer legs though.


isn't that the WHOLE point of a carbon tax???????????????


----------



## Dammacx (May 22, 2006)

Could I just make one little observation. I was kinda into this discussion until people started going crazy about the political aspect and right wing this and left that and conservative this and liberal that. I would love to see conversations like this not come down to a political war. First of all when you start saying how one party screwed up or didn't do anything it puts people who consider themselves in line with the other party on the defensive, and then it just goes down hill from there. I hate when people go after others opinions based more on what political party than whether or not the idea was good or bad. Lets face it, just like everyone else there is good and bad, smart and dumb in all the parties. Instead of worrying about who screwed it up, or who's waiting to long to fix it, or who's not doing enough, let's focus on the good idea's and push those. Cause in the end it wasn't one political party that created the situation, it was the "Government" and even more so, all of us.


----------



## doole (Jan 6, 2008)

Dammacx said:


> I was kinda into this discussion until people started going crazy about the political aspect and right wing this and left that and conservative this and liberal that. I would love to see conversations like this not come down to a political war.


You nailed it. That's the whole problem - the issue is one of science, not politics.

Putting voters in charge of it is like putting a herd of stampeding cattle in charge of a dairy farm.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

doole said:


> You nailed it. That's the whole problem - the issue is one of science, not politics.


I disagree. The science is unequivocal... there's no argument anymore. So this issue is entirely political/socioeconomic: how do we deal with the problem. Carbon tax seems a good idea to me, but it's clearly a political issue.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Totally political issue now,
Big biz, the energy industry , greens and green tech all onside and all waiting on a federal gov with THIS viewpoint










no excuse.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

it's kinda hard for this not to be political, since we have a government right now doing anything it can to drag it's heels on the issue. So of course we are going to criticize conservatives right now.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

bryanc said:


> I disagree. The science is unequivocal... there's no argument anymore. So this issue is entirely political/socioeconomic: how do we deal with the problem. Carbon tax seems a good idea to me, but it's clearly a political issue.
> 
> Cheers


It isn't unequivocal. Most climate scientists believe humas are having an impact but there are also credible scientists who don't believe the data is compelling. 

I think we have to err on the side of caution and act now. But, I also believe we need to keep studying and debating the science behind it. That's how science moves forward. 

Unequivocal is still a ways off.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Carl said:


> Probably one of the few things I agree with the Conservatives on. No carbon tax.
> All that does is reduce consumption, which then ripples through the economy. What if you had to cut your computer usage by 50% tomorrow? Or pay a tax if you used it more than 2 hours a day? If you make your living using a computer, it doesn't make sense.
> The technology exists to do the same things we do now using less power. Canada spends very little on implementing this.
> We have to innovate out of this problem. There are already huge opportunities in the venture capital sector for businesses with energy alternative/saving technologies. This creates new business, employs people and grows the economy, all the while, reducing carbon.
> If we just used conservation as a tool, then we would have stop growth for it to have an effect. Not very smart economics. Trust me, if business decides there is money to be made in producing energy efficient technology, they won't mess around. OK, well, if they are GM or Ford, then maybe, but the the big corporations are dinosaurs. I think the 21st century will be dominated by entrepreneurs in this sector, much like the dotcom boom was dominated by garage startups. Hopefully, it will have longer legs though.


As someone else already mentioned the jump-starting of the alt energy field and the innovation you seek can be best accomplished with a carbon tax. People need to conserve and find out how to stop wasting energy, but nobody's going to put their life on hold. Most won't conserve out of sheer altruism. If individuals and businesses can cut their total tax bill or at least see it not increase by moving to low carbon technologies this will provide massive capital to alternatives and make businesses who use them more competitive.

Your concern about cutting one's energy use by 50% tomorrow is unfounded. A carbon tax would be implemented gradually and should be implemented with a clear timeline for future increases to give people and businesses time to adjust. You won't have to go and trade your current car in for a hybrid tomorrow, but you will probably want to look at your next car being one. The clear timeline will mean that car manufacturers will see where the market will want to go in several years and give them the confidence to change their offerings.

All the innovation in the world will not make alternative energy tech competitive with traditional fossil fuels, because fossil fuels are still very cheap and because there is no cost associated with the catastrophic carbon emissions that result from their use. It may be some time before world oil and natural gas shortages make those prices increase enough for other technologies, no matter how innovative, to be able to compete on price. And ultra-cheap coal, where a huge chunk of our electricity comes from, is in no danger of running out for many years. The only way to make alternatives competitive and spur individuals and businesses to choose them soon enough to make a difference regarding climate change is to put a cost on fossil fuel based carbon emissions. A carbon tax is the most efficient way of doing this.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> It isn't unequivocal. Most climate scientists believe humas are having an impact but there are also credible scientists who don't believe the data is compelling.


I'd like to see the names of those credible scientists who dispute climate change because all I've seen is fringe whackos who are connected to oil industry funded disinformation campaigns.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I'd like to see the names of those credible scientists who dispute climate change because all I've seen is fringe whackos who are connected to oil industry funded disinformation campaigns.


I think this would make a good second thread as it is slightly off-topic.

I can't name such scientists off the top of my head but I have seen / read some dissenting opinions.

You bring up a good point regarding bias. I think we need to acknowledge that bias works both ways. People who don't support the widely accepted theory get tremendous pressure from those who do. In fact, such people get attacked routinely, which isn't very 'scientific'. The financial bias also exists to support the current theory because it is easier to get funding to study things further. The amount of spending on climate change science by government funding and environmental groups far outweighs that of the oil industry. 

I become very sceptical when it becomes taboo to question a scientific belief. The very nature of science is to challenge hypotheses. Politics has made that approach very difficult.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

What a crock.  and you pretend to be rational based .??!!!

*No science has been so thoroughly vetted in the history of mankind.*

The world took concrete steps on the Montreal Accord with far less certainty.

If you took acidification of the oceans ALONE it's undeniable and undeniably bad let alone the atmosphere.
The world took concrete steps on SO2 and the risk was far less than with CO2.

Get over it.....

The questions remain as to how quickly and effectively we can get to carbon neutral so we are not feeding fossil carbon into the cycle.

It CAN be done, it IS being done.
It CAN and DOES generate excellent returns both in energy use savings and new technology industries......billions and billions on both fronts.

There MUST be legislation and oversight to set a level playing field to achieve goals within the guideline times the science has set.

Your implication is that Sweden for instance in particular and the rest of Europe and most of the rest of the planet are off on a wild goose chase with no sound basis in science.
Are you daft???

That they are spending billions of dollars on something that is not needed and on which the science is questionable.....despite the fact that the evidence shows that the actual observed changes are accelerating faster than the models......Arctic ice cover notably.

Once more .....Sweden who is the world leader two years running in making progress towards carbon neutral has it exactly right........and someone should paste this on the foreheads of Harper and Baird in reverse so it's in their face every morning.



> Whatever emissions level Sweden achieves will have little effect on global warming; its greenhouse gases were never more than 0.5 per cent of the world’s total.
> 
> *“But the best argument has always been the economic one,” Edman says. “Clean technology and energy solutions are the biggest emerging global sectors. We can earn a lot of money and create a lot of jobs by being at the frontier.*
> 
> “We are a small country, but we’re exporting management, ideas and technical solutions to China and elsewhere. And China is sending technicians here to work for free just to learn. That’s our chance to make a difference.”


it's OUR chance too and we have even a greater ethical reason to be ahead on this... but Harper and Baird by their refusal to act and refusal to listen are turning us into a world pariah....and deservedly so. 

There is NO excuse.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I have no argument with the science. It is the method of carbon trading that is completely and utterly bogus. It, simply put, achieves nothing but guilt reduction. A gradually phased in carbon tax at least has merit. Carbon trading does not.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> No science has been so thoroughly vetted in the history of mankind.


 



MacDoc said:


> Your implication is that Sweden for instance in particular and the rest of Europe and most of the rest of the planet are off on a wild goose chase with no sound basis in science.
> Are you daft???
> 
> That they are spending billions of dollars on something that is not needed and on which the science is questionable.....despite the fact that the evidence shows that the actual observed changes are accelerating faster than the models......Arctic ice cover notably.


Reading challenged?

Did I suggest there was no sound basis? No. Why would you assume that?  

Do you understand the difference between correlation and causation?

The historic data shows that CO2 and temperature and correlated. The scientific hypothesis is that increased CO2 causes increased temperature. It is possible, but not probable, that the opposite is the case.

To test this hypothesis, scientists have developed computer models to predict what will happen. To test the model scientists calibrate it to real life observations. If you understood computer models, you would know that an error on the positive end (i.e. more warming occurring than predicted) is equal to an error on the negative end (i.e. less warming occurring than predicted). Both variations from predicted outcomes and observed evants suggest EQUAL uncertainty with the model. But I doubt you appreciate this. I do. I significant experience with multi-dimensional and multi-variable groundwater computer models. The models I use are far less complicated than climate change models. If you think extra complexity in the model adds to credibility, then you just don't get it. 

Long story short... to call this the most vetted scientific finding in human history is beyond laughable. For example, there are problems with the calibration. One such problem is that most CO2 models predict significant warming of the upper atmosphere. So far, that isn't showing up in observations. 

Just because there are variations between predicted and observed, does not suggest the opposite is true. Rather, it suggests that more work is needed. Climate systems are extremely complex because our world is complex. Modeling such a thing is far from trivial and all models include massive amounts of simplifications and assumptions. But, that's the best we can do.

The next point you need to understand is the calibration side. In the timescale of climate and geology, years mean nothing. Decades mean nothing. We will only know if the models were correct when we look back a century or more from now. 

Do you fear people questioning science? I don't.

We need to act because the data is compelling and we need to follow the Precautionary Principle. But to suggest this is beyond debate is silly.


----------



## doole (Jan 6, 2008)

groovetube said:


> it's kinda hard for this not to be political, since we have a government right now doing anything it can to drag it's heels on the issue. So of course we are going to criticize conservatives right now.


Again, it is NOT a political issue, end of story. Politicians don't know dick about it and voters know even less.

Ask the average mouth-breather on the street if the Kyoto Accord is a good idea and he or she will bleed all over you. Then ask them what's IN the Kyoto Accord and 99.999% of them have *absolutely* no idea. None. Nada.

It's just a mess.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Vandave said:


> We need to act because the data is compelling and we need to follow the Precautionary Principle. But to suggest this is beyond debate is silly.


At this point the debate is just an excuse to do nothing. It has been said and I'll repeat: "Show us these credible scientists", because all I've seen are partisan hacks who aren't even climate scientists, who are directly in the pay of big oil who refute human impact on the environment. 
If you are going to keep bringing up these phantom people you need to start naming them so we can vet them other wise you have no argument.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

doole said:


> Again, it is NOT a political issue, end of story.


Again it IS a political issue and just because you say it ain't don't make it so. I know I won't be voting for the Torries and anyone who is, doesn't have the environment as a priority. That is the real end of this story.


----------



## doole (Jan 6, 2008)

martman said:


> If you are going to keep bringing up these phantom people you need to start naming them so we can vet them other wise you have no argument.


<standing up, clearing throat>

er - Prof. Tim Ball, University of Winnipeg, Department of Geography. One of the founding elders of Greenpeace.

Co-producer of "The Great Global Warming Swindle".

How's that?

Politics will make a lot of noise and hot air. Science might fix it. I know which way _I'm_ leaning.

Reading your signature line, I can't believe you don't agree.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

martman said:


> I know I won't be voting for the Torries and anyone who is, doesn't have the environment as a priority. That is the real end of this story.


It sounds like you have always voted NDP and would never vote for a right wing party anyways.

The environment is a very high priority for me. I feel strongly that we need to take action on reducing CO2 emissions. I believe the Conservatives will take action on it, albeit begrudgingly. I think that once we get started down this path, we will amaze ourselves at what can be accomplished. I think it just takes some economic incentive and things will get done. Ten years from now, we will look back and think it wasn't so bad.


----------



## doole (Jan 6, 2008)

Vandave said:


> It sounds like you have always voted NDP...


Smells like that to me, too. :lmao:


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

martman said:


> At this point the debate is just an excuse to do nothing. It has been said and I'll repeat: "Show us these credible scientists", because all I've seen are partisan hacks who aren't even climate scientists, who are directly in the pay of big oil who refute human impact on the environment.
> If you are going to keep bringing up these phantom people you need to start naming them so we can vet them other wise you have no argument.


I hope you realize that I believe what the majority of climate scientists are saying. I believe that the evidence for human caused global warming is real. I believe that we need to take action and reduce emissions. 

Let's just pause for a second here... I imagine we both agree to this point. That's a lot of common ground.

I do not believe that dissenting opinions are an excuse to not do anything about the issue. Even if opinions were split 50:50 I would still believe that is compelling enough for us to take action. 

Still agree to this point?

OK, then what's the problem? Why do so many people fear the opinions of those who do not support anthropogenic warming? Such people are an asset to the overall debate. They bring focus on the weaker parts of the science and areas that require further research. The scientific process is based on continually challenging hypotheses. This isn't a bad thing.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Vandave said:


> ... <bunch of totally reasonable stuff deleted>... Still agree to this point?


Yes!



> OK, then what's the problem? Why do so many people fear the opinions of those who do not support anthropogenic warming? Such people are an asset to the overall debate. They bring focus on the weaker parts of the science and areas that require further research. The scientific process is based on continually challenging hypotheses. This isn't a bad thing.


I still completely agree, but I contend you're being too idealistic (boy, does that feel weird).

Disagreement, debate and doubt is essential to the progress of science. But democratic society at large operates on consensus (or, more precisely, the appearance thereof) and lowest-common-denominator-economics.

So, while I won't go as far as MacDoc in claiming anthropogenic causes of climate change are the best-vetted science we have ever produced (I would contend that evolutionary theory takes that honor), it's pretty clear that as good a scientific consensus as can be expected regarding a theory that is less than a couple of decades old has been reached. Sure there are still doubters... but there are scientists that doubt evolution too (e.g. Mike Behe).

But the point is that, like evolutionary biology, while debate is good for science it isn't good for driving political policy. When politicians (or, more accurately, political lobbiests) can point to 'uncertainty', 'scientific debate' and 'academic contention', politicians (who are mostly lawyers) see wiggle-room, and the game becomes one of rhetoric and politics-as-usual.

So we need to ensure that our politicians understand that we - the voters - want action on GHGs, and we are no longer interested in the scientific debate. Carbon taxes, Caps, Trading... at this point I'd accept anything, even though I agree that much of what's proposed in Kyoto is wrong-headed, simply to get the ball rolling (a ball rolling in the wrong direction can have it's course changed, but an immovable blob that resists all impetus is an insurmountable problem).

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I share the opinion but I certainly did not orginate it.



> Global warming: Stop arguing and start planning
> 
> By KATHARINE HAYHOE and ANDREW DESSLER
> 
> ...


Op-ed on the IPCC and climate change | Gristmill: The environmental news blog | Grist

Better chops than mine by far........


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

BryanC, I think you raise some good points and concerns about how politicians and lawyers use rhetoric and can distort public opinion.

I still don't think that is reason to avoid using good science and effectively closing the debate on the issue by raising hell, fire and brimstone against any naysayers. I don't think that is enough reason to mislead the public into thinking that this is a 100% truth. It isn't. Rather, it is the consensus opinion of very smart scientists.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> I share the opinion but I certainly did not orginate it.


Since when was Katherine keeping score on the most vetted topics in science? :lmao: 

Let's use a little common sense MacDoc. Clearly there are other things in science that have been 'vetted' to a much greater extent. 

I can't believe a scientist would say, "It's time to stop arguing about the science". I am not sure she understands the scientific method.  I agree with her prior quote and it is almost word for word with what I have been saying (i.e. uncertainty is not an excuse to not act).


----------



## doole (Jan 6, 2008)

My problem is 'environmentalists' wearing blinkers and blathering endless slogans. This diminishes the real situation - which is quite obviously utterly dire.

I prefer to have real facts delivered by real scientists over infernal slogans delivered by screaming liberals who only vote to the left because it puts them in a better tax situation, since they usually have loser jobs to begin with. Then they defend their voting position as being 'responsible'.

How hatefully hypocritical.

The truth about Harper is that while he hasn't moved quickly enough for some, he's moved a lot farther during his short career than any of his meat-slapping liberal predecessors. The only things that are holding him up are the brutal inequities of the Kyoto accord. He _should_ object to those, and God help him with that.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Talk about blinkers  ....the Harpers apologists have "airline sleep assist eyeware" on full time.

Pray tell exactly WHAT has Harper done except willfully Canada into "pariah" status world wide.

Case in point.
Harper HAS the report on what should be done by the government panel and refuses it DESPITE support from the oil companies, big biz and the greens for following the report recommendations.
Tell me AGAIN what he's DONE??
....sheer, blind obstruction.....

•••

Seems I'm not alone in calling for the oil sands to get heavily regulated.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Seems I'm not alone in calling for the oil sands to get heavily regulated.


No one, least of all me is disputing that. We KNOW and appreciate your position. The frequency of tossing it at us gets tiresome though.


----------



## doole (Jan 6, 2008)

MacDoc said:


> Tell me AGAIN what he's DONE??


He's exposed the endlessly idiotic Kyoto accord for what it is and taken steps to make other countries understand that it isn't going to be good enough.

And - wow. 7811 votes. That's nearly .003% of this countries population. (But not quite.) Who voted on that, the population of Vegerville?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Wow -back pedal or what.........



> *Canada needs common carbon tax rules: Flaherty*
> Updated Mon. Jan. 14 2008 4:50 PM ET
> 
> The Canadian Press
> ...


That's far cry from the knee jerk "no way".
Now all of a sudden it's a good thing to have a single organized tax structure on carbon....fancy that. 

...must have read the tea leaves......


----------



## doole (Jan 6, 2008)

MacDoc said:


> Wow -back pedal or what.........
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not at all convinced that constitutes any particular back-pedaling. The only thing they said 'no way' to was Kyoto, which was absolutely the correct thing to say, afaic.

Doesn't matter _what_ these guys do, the liberals will always find a way to stay petulant.

Harper has *always* maintained that he would come up with an orderly plan.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I hope the chances are better that we'll see a carbon tax here in BC. Gordon Campbell has to do something to live up to his lofty green promises of late - his transit announcements today are a good step. If we want to reduce our carbon emissions what better way than to get the citizens to lead through making millions of individual choices than to impose piles of regulations.

I hope Flaherty and Harper were taken aside by some people who know what they're talking about, (many of them economists) and prompted to rethink their carbon tax stand. I think it can be sold to the public if the emphasis is "revenue neutral tax shifting", not "more taxes".

Here's hoping that some people have also written their MPs and that they are responding to that also.

(Today's mood: less pessimistic  )


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Maybe someone finally woke up to what a "clever" politician would do. 

Some around here can try and turn sow's ears into "orderly" silk purses all they want.

Most know what NO! meant........petulance at best.


----------



## doole (Jan 6, 2008)

A "clever" politician - gets elected.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Never was one to be bullied and badgered into someone else's opinion. Haven't changed recently either.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I hope the chances are better that we'll see a carbon tax here in BC. Gordon Campbell has to do something to live up to his lofty green promises of late - his transit announcements today are a good step. If we want to reduce our carbon emissions what better way than to get the citizens to lead through making millions of individual choices than to impose piles of regulations.
> 
> I hope Flaherty and Harper were taken aside by some people who know what they're talking about, (many of them economists) and prompted to rethink their carbon tax stand. I think it can be sold to the public if the emphasis is "revenue neutral tax shifting", not "more taxes".
> 
> ...


I think Campbell is doing a good job on the Climate Change issue. He has set solid reductions over time and he has taken steps in the right direction. Transit improvements are definitely required. I wonder where the province is going to get the money to fund it. Potentially this money will come from a carbon tax. If so, I think it would have been wise to have made the two announcements at the same time. Since it wasn't, I can only assume carbon taxes would be used for other endevours.

I think they are 'testing the water' right now to see how a carbon tax would sit with British Columbians. So far, I haven't heard much of an outcry so I suspect Carol Taylor will follow through with it. 

I am not sure it will change behaviours so quickly. Has the high price of gas as of late changed car driving patterns appreciably? The demand for gas is fairly inelastic so I don't see much change on the consumption end in the short to medium term. I think the real benefits will be in happens with the money collected. 

As far as cars go I think we need to encourage more fuel efficient models. I don't mind more tax shifting from SUVs to compacts is already in effect (and supported by big bad Harper mind you).


----------



## doole (Jan 6, 2008)

Vandave said:


> As far as cars go I think we need to encourage more fuel efficient models. I don't mind more tax shifting from SUVs to compacts is already in effect (and supported by big bad Harper mind you).


Absolutely. Needs time, though - not everybody is going to drop everything and sell their Hummers at discounts tomorrow just because gas prices went up.

Even if they did - who would buy them?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> As far as cars go I think we need to encourage more fuel efficient models. I don't mind more tax shifting from SUVs to compacts is already in effect (and supported by big bad Harper mind you).


I'm not nearly as trusting of Campbell as you are (not trusting of any politician, truth be told) but I'll give him his due, as long as he actually follows through. The transit announcements are a good signal, but only a beginning as far as I'm concerned. I think he's smarter than Harper has been on this issue by a long shot and has taken a page out of Ahhnold's book, which turned around the Governator's polling numbers.

As far as cars go I propose another revenue neutral carrot and stick scheme called a "feebate". Fees are added on top of vehicles relative to carbon emissions and energy use. Rebates are given for those vehicles that are the least polluting. The fees fund the rebates and the scale slides dynamically as buying habits gradually change. Suddenly the hybrid starts to look like a real bargain, especially if combined with far lower carbon taxes. 

I'm afraid that the BC Liberals biggest campaign contributor, the BC New Car Dealers Association, even though they are getting their freeway demands from Campbell aren't going to be very keen on a feebate system though.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

One way or another........



> *Alberta crude may be too dirty, U.S. law says*
> 
> MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT
> From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
> ...


reportonbusiness.com: Alberta crude may be too dirty, U.S. law says

polluter pays.....no excuse, no escape.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc--do you honesty believe that if the U.S. government hobbled itself by such legislation that there wouldn't be enough customers left to buy anything the oil sands produces?


----------



## doole (Jan 6, 2008)

MacDoc said:


> One way or another........polluter pays.


Makes sense to me.

I'm using about 60 litres / month, not counting natural gas for heat.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Well, if you count the natural gas...you will pay.


----------



## doole (Jan 6, 2008)

Yes, I know. I didn't include it here because there's not much I can do about it beyond what I've already done.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Required reading for Harpo



> Oil Demand, the Climate and the Energy Ladder
> 
> 
> By JAD MOUAWAD
> ...


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/19/business/19interview.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

_*part of it is governments. I think if you can price carbon dioxide, probably you can stimulate carbon capture and sequestration. If you tax a certain form of energy, over time it gets more expensive and you may use less of it.*
_

.........from an oil exec

*How you tackled the sulfur dioxide problem in the United States was the basic inspiration for the European trading system of carbon. So there are examples from the past we can apply to overcome that problem. But we can’t do it on our own as an industry. We need cooperation from governments.*

are you LISTENING Mr. Harper?????....'twould appear not......

no excuses.....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc: There are logical flaws in touting an oil executive's bally-hoo when you agree with him ("from an oil exec") and then decrying others ("Well of course you can't believe that research--it comes from an oil company"). 

This particular exec has already realized how to make the most money possible from carbon taxes. The way that carbon taxation will be introduced is through the pressure of oil companies who believe they're first past the post in methods of extracting money from customers.



> Bali is a good outcome if people can agree how to have useful discussion in the coming two years and the United States, China and India are on board.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Actually the caption should read:

"The Canadian fellow says don't worry we won't have to do a %^$#@ing thing as long as we say we can't do anything until everybody's on board. That won't happen in a millennium so just play along..."


----------



## doole (Jan 6, 2008)

groovetube said:


> Actually the caption should read:
> 
> "The Canadian fellow says don't worry we won't have to do a %^$#@ing thing as long as we say we can't do anything until everybody's on board. That won't happen in a millennium so just play along..."


Yeah, right. The whole world is listening to and emulating Canada.

Just like they always do.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

there needs to be one of those smileys with something whooshing over it's head.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube: I've already seen your comments about me on Magic. The worst thing is not to be talked about at all.


----------



## doole (Jan 6, 2008)

groovetube said:


> there needs to be one of those smileys with something whooshing over it's head.


I've personally always thought there needed to be an animated one of a little guy with a shovel, beating the corpse of a horse...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> groovetube: I've already seen your comments about me on Magic. The worst thing is not to be talked about at all.


oh? What did I write? That you kill kittens and babies? And is there a reason why anyone here would care what happens elsewhere?

You know very well what is allowed here so keep it over there if you're miffed.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

doole said:


> Yeah, right. The whole world is listening to and emulating Canada.
> 
> Just like they always do.


Perspective is everything.

There was a story about a guy who was an extra playing a guy behind a shop counter in the film _Casablanca._ "What's the film about," a fellow actor asks him. His answer: "It's about a heroic shopkeeper who resists the Nazis by..."


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

doole said:


> I've personally always thought there needed to be an animated one of a little guy with a shovel, beating the corpse of a horse...


sure post one. However, some see the issue as beating a dead horse, and others one that we should be paying attention to.
I guess I'm in the latter.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

All of those animated gifs were done years ago. The notion of depicting dead horses, then having someone beating up on the corpse doesn't really translate well to catchy computer imagery.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *To work, carbon tax must sting*
> 
> RENÉ JOHNSTON/TORONTO STAR FILE PHOTO
> 
> ...


the lack of leadership at the Federal level it appalling. Toss the lot....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

There's the rub. It's clear from this article that the "price" of carbon taxes is intended not to reflect any "cost" of carbon dioxide emissions--which is a rather arbitrary figure--but to inflict pain on emitters.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> the lack of leadership at the Federal level it appalling. Toss the lot....


Face it, too many Canadians will not accept a carbon tax and every party and politician knows it. Even the Greens.

Why other people don't get it, is a mystery. 

Oh, they'll change their light bulbs all right. And they will buy more efficient appliances. And they'll upgrade their furnaces and insulation. And they will buy some greener products including more fuel efficient vehicles.

But they won't accept a hit in the gas tank over world prices. Not on your life.

And the first political party to do it will be history at the polls come next election. And the parties know that too.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> Face it, too many Canadians will not accept a carbon tax and every party and politician knows it. Even the Greens.
> 
> Why other people don't get it, is a mystery.


Oh we get it alright. We just haven't figured out how to wake the rest of you up to the fact that making these changes, even though they are expensive in the short term, is not only good for businesses, but may be essential for our socio-economic survival. I'm sure it will eventually get through to you. But I'm not sure if it won't be too late.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I hope it's too late.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Macfury said:


> I hope it's too late.


It's never too late to charge us more for the things we buy everyday. :greedy:


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> It's never too late to charge us more for the things we buy everyday. :greedy:


no it certainly isn't. Particularly if those items cause significant damage to our environment, and something less harmful, is cheaper.

But you knew that though.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The carbon trading economy is a figment of people's imagination. It can only work as long as everyone pretends they are buying and selling something--and even then all of the normal cues are missing. It would be like having adults playing "store" and using real money to pretend to buy things--maybe smack their lips a little as they deliver the cash as though "eating" their purchase.

I think the whole scheme is just a way to claim that this is "not a tax."


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> The carbon trading economy is a figment of people's imagination.


Money is a figment of people's imagination. Something many people seem to have a terribly difficult time understanding is that our economy is something we've fabricated as a mechanism to make our lives easier, and it doesn't exist in any objective sense. The economy should serve our interests, and not the other way around.

Right now, our economy is destroying our habitat (not to mention the habitat of most other multicellular life on earth) and many of us seem to be of the opinion that there's nothing we can do about it because "it's the economy." But the economy is just an emergent property of our decisions, and it has no will of it's own. We simply need to change the rules, and the economy will change accordingly. Like all emergent systems, it's difficult to predict how changes in the rules will play out, but there are many reasonable things we could try, and if they don't seem to work the way we'd like them to, we simply change them again. What I object to is the notion that we are somehow helpless to change the economy. We aren't. The economy *is* us.

Cheers


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> Money is a figment of people's imagination. Something many people seem to have a terribly difficult time understanding is that our economy is something we've fabricated as a mechanism to make our lives easier, and it doesn't exist in any objective sense.


Using that logic, please feel free to forward me your pay cheque each month. You obviously would not miss the fabricated money and could carry on without it.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

SINC said:


> Using that logic, please feel free to forward me your pay cheque each month. You obviously would not miss the fabricated money and could carry on without it.


His pay cheque is already going towards paying double for his power through Bullfrog so they can "provide the grid with clean energy equal to his usage". And in return he gets a photo at Christmas time of the theoretical newt he saved that year, and of course their word that they are keeping up with the demand of all of their customers.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I believe it was macfury who first used that logic...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Bryanc: the economy does not "Serve" us in the sense that other systems might, and attempts to make it do so have real-world consequences, many of them negative. While the functioning of the economy requires our faith in the stability of the system, the products and service we purchase are real and measurable and have value because we chase them with our cash. Declaring that carbon dioxide has a negative value that is determined entirely by fiat is purely and simply a tax--not a market.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

That does not follow from what I said. We fabricated money in order to make the exchange of commodities/services more convenient/flexible. That does not mean that the commodities or services are not valuable, or that the medium of exchange isn't something of indirect value as a consequence. 

My point is that the whole monetary system is a fabrication that we have created to improve our lives, and therefore accepting the fact that it is damaging our lives as if we can't do anything about it is irrational.

Cheers
[edit] this was directed at SINC's comment, the other postings appeared after I hit submit [/edit]


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

The economy is wholly owned subsidiary of the environment. As people whose existence is solely dependant on receiving dividends from the healthy functioning of the latter, it would be rather unwise to let a badly managed subsidiary undermine it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

As an owner of the economy, the environment is doing a really crappy job of running it.


----------



## doole (Jan 6, 2008)

The environment does not run the economy. The economy is run by that ever stampeding herd of cattle known as "investors".


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The gang that couldn't shoot straight....even the villians can't get their act in synch



> Alberta sets target to cut greenhouse gases by 2050
> NORVAL SCOTT
> Globe and Mail Update
> January 24, 2008 at 4:27 PM EST
> ...


Harper Stelmach and Co.....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm going to read more about carbon capture and what kind of forms the carbon can take. One would think that a more robust nanotechnology manufacturing sector could make good use of carbon atoms.


----------



## doole (Jan 6, 2008)

Geez, you guys - who's on first?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

With us capturing and storing all that carbon, think of the new industry we can start selling real carbon to the dreamers who want to buy imaginary carbon credits.

There'll be a line up to take some home with them.

Could be yet another boom for Alberta.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC: Time to institute the federal NCP--the National Carbon Program--to stabilize the markets and make sure the wealth is shared with all Canadians!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

hear hear. I'm tired of watching the dollars go out of Toronto and not come back.

screw the rest of canada.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

ah - just vote the idjits out and nationalize the resource.

Look what Norway has done



> NORWAY
> 
> Norway, one of the world's richest economies, *is a model of prudent economic management of resource wealth*. So states the IMF 2000 Article IV consultation with Norway. Norway is the top non-OPEC oil exporter, the world's third-largest exporter of oil, and pumps about 3.2 million barrels per day. Norway's oil and gas industry underpins the economy, providing up to 25% of the country's gross domestic product. This country of nearly four and one half million people has a steady growth rate, almost no poverty, and negligible unemployment. Norway has a diverse economy based on agriculture, forestry, fishing and manufacturing, among other things, and its oil industry has developed amid much planning, bargaining, and public debate.
> 
> ...


and the fund is worth some $387 billion.

Clearly neither Alberta or the current Ottawa regime has a clue about management of a national resource..

Canada should simply hire Norway to manage the resource and give them 10% of the proceeds....we'd be far better off. 

We look like country hicks by comparison.......Alberta in particular.


----------



## doole (Jan 6, 2008)

Reminds me of an old favorite quote of David Frost...

"I have the answer to the violence. We'll just nationalize crime."


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

So Norway is succeeding on the backs of energy junkies as sort of an international "pusher" of evil oil?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> So Norway is succeeding on the backs of energy junkies as sort of an international "pusher" of evil oil?


I know you're just trying to troll MacDoc, but there's nothing evil about oil, as I'm sure you're aware.

Oil has many useful properties, unfortunately the free market with its invisible hand hasn't managed this valuable finite resource for the good of the whole, which leads to looming shortages, pollution and climate change. Although those commies in Norway haven't hewed to the neo-liberal, libertarian playbook, it seems that they have set their country up to be in a far better situation for the future.

Got a link to the article, MacDoc?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I Although those commies in Norway haven't hewed to the neo-liberal, libertarian playbook


Sauce: Norway has privatized a considerable amount of its oil industry since nationalizing it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *The greenhouse divide*
> 
> From Saturday's Globe and Mail
> 
> ...












I can certainly see the whole hearted effort on both sides to deal with the sewage spew issue


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc: I don't understand why you keep acting as if the Alberta procincial government and the Canadian federal government should be acting in lock-step. The Ontario Liberal party and the federal Liberals aren't the same organization either. One would expect differences of focus and priorities from governments representing two different groups of the electorate.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Calling it what it is......... .....



> *A licence to pollute dressed up in rhetorical petticoats*
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> 
> ...


Stubborn, disgusting, unethical intransigence .

Nationalize and be done with it. Not only do they pander to polluters - they squander the resulting wealth....how much more wrong could Harper and Stelmach be.

Norway has a $367 billion diversified oil based fund to enhance the lives of all it's citizens and manages to be a world leader in carbon control

- Canada a $163 Billion infrastructure deficit and criminals in charge of the national oil wealth.
Our so called leaders in this country are blind fools.

There is NO excuse.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

the new conservatives, are no better than the bloc suddenly becoming a national party.

Sorry my western friends. It's becoming too obvious to everyone else what's going on here.

Steven Harper's concern for the economy recently, shows me he's looking for another issue to cover the environmental one in the coming election.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Steven Harper's concern for the economy recently, shows me he's looking for another issue to cover the environmental one in the coming election.


Damn--and the Conservatives were counting on your vote, too!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Damn--and the Conservatives were counting on your vote, too!


I like it. Let's see more of that.


----------



## doole (Jan 6, 2008)

groovetube said:


> Steven Harper's concern for the economy recently, shows me he's looking for another issue to cover the environmental one in the coming election.


There's somebody who *isn't* concerned about the economy?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

perhaps you can tell me why a PM at his xmas chat would express his concern that the economy is going to tank. Certainly makes for good chatter over turkey across the country!

I would think he would try to be optimistic...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Strange that Norway has few concerns - perhaps Harper is concerned because is doltist ideologue finance minister has managed to grow gov AND fritter away income that would give him some policy room to shift to green industry.

Canada is only a decade or so behind.

He already hit one deficit in November trying for a pork barrel election attempt - 
Love those neo con policies. 
Straight to hell everytime, Harris, Bush, now Harper......


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I saw this article and almost spit out my coffee except that I have grown accustomed to the blatant lying from Canada's new government.



> He attacked the opposition as big spenders, even though federal spending has increased under the Conservatives.
> "Our opponents will try to make Canadians believe that they can somehow spend the United States out of an economic slowdown," said Harper.
> "My friends, their reckless spending would, in one budget, push the country back into deficit, adding to the federal debt and putting upward pressure on interest rates."
> Harper also suggested that his opponents would repeal the government's reduction of the GST from seven to five per cent, and implement a "carbon tax" on greenhouse-gas emissions.
> "Ordinary Canadians see new and higher taxes as out of touch, out of control and out of bonds. And they know that those new taxes would take Canadians back-and taxpayers in this country will not go back."


wow. Just how dumb does he think 'ordinary Canadians' really are?

Well, perhaps forgetful enough to not remember how Harper raised taxes on 'ordinary' Canadians when he took office, and to somehow not see how it was his government that ramped up spending, not the opposition...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think Canadaians are so dumb that they will recklessly favour tax cuts and drive home the notion that carbon taxes and the international trading of carbon credits are not on the table in the next election. They are so dumb that they will ensure that Dion is ousted as leader of the federal Liberal party. They are so dumb that they will hand the Conservatives another victory next election because they wrongly believe the other parties are woefully out of touch. They are so dumb that they will not think that they can emulate Norway, a mere blip of a county sitting on a huge pool of oil. They are so dumb that they wil read articles such as this one:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/17/weekinreview/17bawer.html?pagewanted=1

and accept them at face value.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I think Canadaians are so dumb that they will recklessly favour tax cuts and drive home the notion that carbon taxes and the international trading of carbon credits are not on the table in the next election. They are so dumb that they will ensure that Dion is ousted as leader of the federal Liberal party. They are so dumb that they will hand the Conservatives another victory next election because they wrongly believe the other parties are woefully out of touch. They are so dumb that they will not think that they can emulate Norway, a mere blip of a county sitting on a huge pool of oil. They are so dumb that they wil read articles such as this one:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/17/weekinreview/17bawer.html?pagewanted=1
> 
> and accept them at face value.


ok, now that you have ranted about something completely past the point I made, how about addressing head on, this blatant lie that the opposition were the ones to increase spending, not Harper?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Harper has outspent Martin, no doubt. I wish he had cut spending. However, the federal parties are all spending masters and they all tell the same story about the spending potential of the party currently not in power--and they are always right! In both the Martin and Harper governments, rising tax revenue buoyed the reckless spending. Harper let some of the spending money go, while Martin spent it on our behalf in patronizing fashion.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Harper has outspent Martin, no doubt. I wish he had cut spending. However, the federal parties are all spending masters and they all tell the same story about the spending potential of the party currently not in power--and they are always right! In both the Martin and Harper governments, rising tax revenue buoyed the reckless spending. Harper let some of the spending money go, while Martin spent it on our behalf in patronizing fashion.


So, it is agreed, that Harper, is lying though his teeth.

I'm making a point of this, like others, because this government campaigned on the difference between the lying liberals, and the truthful conservatives.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

He won't because Conservatives hate it when you point out they are the big spenders. Just look at how this myth of conservative fiscal responsibility plays out in the USA. The Republicans are always the biggest spenders but they always put the spend image in the Democrats. Our Conservatives are no different.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Harper let some of the spending money go, while Martin spent it on our behalf in patronizing fashion.


Sorry but this is a load. Harper is no stranger to patronage. Gives us a break!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

martman said:


> Sorry but this is a load. Harper is no stranger to patronage. Gives us a break!


this whole 'the liberals did it so it's ok' stuff is getting old fast.

The conservatives are showing they are major liars. On all fronts.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Martman: I meant "patronizing" in its original sense, but I see the word still resonates in relation to the Liberals.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

no surprise there.
:lmao: :clap:


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

same old, same old.

'the liberals blah blah...'

you're right martman, anything, but address it head on.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The Libs under Martin were just as culpable about leaving Alberta and the oil a free pass of course MF assumes a diss of his alpha dogs implies support for the other pack.

All hat no cattle in regards in to green and management of oil income......that would be NOW..not then.

Kid got it correct.










a good reminder
This Magazine: Minority report


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> The Libs under Martin were just as culpable about leaving Alberta and the oil a free pass *of course MF assumes a diss of his alpha dogs implies support for the other pack.*


:clap:


----------



## MacBookPro (Jun 22, 2006)

*I doubt the Liberals would have done THIS!*

Taking the science out of politics...

Scientists lament closing of key advisory office



> Members of Canada's scientific community praised the contributions of the national science adviser and expressed regret over the government's decision to phase out the position at the end of March.
> 
> On Wednesday, Industry Canada confirmed that national science adviser Arthur Carty would be retiring on March 31, and that the position and office would be phased out.
> 
> ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> The Libs under Martin were just as culpable about leaving Alberta and the oil a free pass of course MF assumes a diss of his alpha dogs implies support for the other pack.



It does not assume support of the other pack. I still support none of the major parties--I only count my blessings when they occasionally stumble on a policy that I find palatable.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> It does not assume support of the other pack. I still support none of the major parties--I only count my blessings when they occasionally stumble on a policy that I find palatable.


come now. If that were true, you would not dodge each and every topic of Harper's missteps and lies with, 'the liberals blah blah...', would you?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Uh oh - the Harper gate keepers must have missed this Canada's New Government report....












> News Release
> Autumn 2007 Was Warmer and Wetter than Normal
> 
> Ottawa, December 18, 2007 - The autumn of 2007 in Canada was neither the warmest nor wettest on record but was still warmer and wetter than normal.
> ...


tsk tsk....do hear a faint echo of "off with their heads".....

There IS no excuse........


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

> the warmer and wetter than normal conditions are consistent with the the warmer and wetter than normal conditions are consistent with the types of changes that are expected to occur in the Canadian Climate as a result of global human-induced climate change.


or


> the warmer and wetter than normal conditions are consistent with the types of changes that are expected to occur in the Canadian Climate as a result of *global climate change.*


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

He's still in denial.....has been all along and I suspect most of the Cons are as well.
They are trying to con the Canadian people into thinking they are serious about reducing carbon output when the truth is obvious they could give a rat's ass about it.

They need to have their noses rubbed it every day that they are trading a liveable planet for a money from polluting......polluting that is entirely unnecessary.

It's a choice and a disgusting one....akin to knowingly feeding kids raw sewage for breakfast and getting paid for it.

There IS no excuse.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> ....akin to knowingly feeding kids raw sewage for breakfast and getting paid for it.


Let's get some "babies on pitchforks" imagery going here as well.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

i donno. After what I have seen the cons try to pass off as truth lately, I don't have any trust in anything they say. I think any reasonable person would come to that conclusion.

Before you get too too excited I don't trust the liberals either. But I want one of them to DO something.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I don't get excited when people criticize political parties. I have no trust in 90% of what they say. I try to judge them based on what I think they will do, not what they promise.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

It's -31 with a wind chill factor of -55 here this morning. And yes, I'm sweating it out on global warming.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Like we need any more evidence of head in sand vile attitude.....can't stand the heat....time to take the resource away.....



> *Stelmach to skip climate change session*
> 
> KAREN HOWLETT AND JUSTINE HUNTER
> 
> ...


Time for MAJOR change if govs WILL NOT respond to both the people and the business community

disgusting....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Once the business community figured out how to soak consumers with "climate change" legislation, they hopped on board like greedy hogs to the trough.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Once the business community figured out how to soak consumers with "climate change" legislation, they hopped on board like greedy hogs to the trough.


I'm sure money has nothing to do with it, they are genuinely concerned.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Jumbo: It's just like the CFC regulations and the Montreal Accord. Though I agree with the science behind banning CFCs, the treaty was heavily supported by chemical companies who were positioned to market a more expensive replacement coolant.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

So you oppose the prospects of Canadian companies making more money on marketing environmentally sustainable products and services? Do you think we should leave that market to the Germans, Norwegians, French, and Americans?

I've been trying to support environmentally friendly Canadian companies for decades, but without adjustments to the economy (e.g. carbon taxes), they really have a hard time competing with the fossil-fuel-subsidized, status-quo.

I'd be happy to see the premiers and the federal government hash out an agreement that causes consumptive and wasteful behavior to become more expensive, especially if it made more sustainable behavior less expensive.

Cheers


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

bryanc said:


> So you oppose the prospects of Canadian companies making more money on marketing environmentally sustainable products and services? Do you think we should leave that market to the Germans, Norwegians, French, and Americans?


For those who don't believe there is any reason to move towards environmental sustainability then any additional money they might have to spend to continue in their habits will be seen as a "cash grab" or "tax grab". Those people want to continue polluting and imperilling our shared environment at no economic cost to themselves. In their minds pollution isn't a big problem and global warming is a hoax designed to extract money from them.

Reminds me of a neighbour I once had who felt that I had no right to object to his playing of hardcore metal music full blast at 2 am. He didn't understand why anyone would have a problem with his noise pollution and that I was infringing on his "freedom" by threatening to call the police.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> So you oppose the prospects of Canadian companies making more money on marketing environmentally sustainable products and services? Do you think we should leave that market to the Germans, Norwegians, French, and Americans?


I don't count "carbon neutrality" as something that represents environmental stability. 



> Reminds me of a neighbour I once had who felt that I had no right to object to his playing of hardcore metal music full blast at 2 am. He didn't understand why anyone would have a problem with his noise pollution and that I was infringing on his "freedom" by threatening to call the police.


Reminds me of companies selling filtered tap water and bottling it at a monstrous mark-up because consumers are buying into the hype.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I don't count "carbon neutrality" as something that represents environmental stability.
> 
> 
> 
> Reminds me of companies selling filtered tap water and bottling it at a monstrous mark-up because consumers are buying into the hype.


who is talking about hype?

So, your solution is do nothing? Continue letting our government shovel hot air and do nothing?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

groovetube said:


> who is talking about hype?
> 
> So, your solution is do nothing? Continue letting our government shovel hot air and do nothing?


Not to speak for MF, but I'm reasonably certain he doesn't think a solution is necessary, because in his view the problem is non-existent and "hype". Please correct me if I've misrepresented that.

That's the view of Harper and the Cons as well, although politically they can't afford to come out and say that because it would hurt their chances of attaining their goal of parliamentary majority power.

This is probably different than the view of many Canadians who believe there is a problem, but don't really want to hear that the solutions might cost something and require change. These folks are the ones that will happily suck up to the cynical blah-blah non-action of politicians like Harper, Baird and Company.

Meanwhile a chasm bigger than the Grand Canyon opened up recently in Antarctica as the ice melt carries on increasingly faster to the surprise of those who predicted more conservative amounts of melting.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Not to speak for MF, but I'm reasonably certain he doesn't think a solution is necessary, because in his view the problem is non-existent and "hype". Please correct me if I've misrepresented that.
> 
> That's the view of Harper and the Cons as well, although politically they can't afford to come out and say that because it would hurt their chances of attaining their goal of parliamentary majority power.
> 
> ...


I don't disagree with you.

hence "Continue letting our government shovel hot air and do nothing".

Which I believed summed up pretty much what you said.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

:clap:

Meanwhile back in a nation that actually has some leadership....



> *Sweden Aims to be World's First Oil-free Nation*
> From Larry West,
> Your Guide to Environmental Issues.
> FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!
> ...


a few oily feathers to go with the home grown "tar" should be appropriate for Harper and Stelmach 



> Swedish municipalities going fossil fuel free
> Posted 20 June 2007 in EDITOR'S CHOICE
> 
> The Swedish city of Vaxjo is chasing a future free of fossil fuels, and* it's almost halfway there without having sacrificed lifestyle, comfort or economic growth. *
> ...


sweden fossil fuel free 2008 - Google Search

and all that whining here about a carbon tax......

No excuse.....


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Cue Macfury's response that Sweden is a small inconsequential country that can't possibly be used as an example that would apply to Canada.

Before you do Macfury, maybe it is time you explain yourself as you seem to believe that you alone don't have to back up your statements. Tell us WHY Sweden's example doesn't apply to Canada.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

martman said:


> Tell us WHY Sweden's example doesn't apply to Canada.


I can answer that mm:

It's because Sweden is a small inconsequential country that can't possibly be used as an example that would apply to Canada. Apples and oranges and all, you know.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> I can answer that mm:
> 
> It's because Sweden is a small inconsequential country that can't possibly be used as an example that would apply to Canada. Apples and oranges and all, you know.


Nice and circular (and lame).


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

martman said:


> Nice and circular (and lame).


*Hundreds of scientists reject global warming basing policy on carbon dioxide levels 'potentially disastrous economic folly'*

A new U.S. Senate report documents hundreds of prominent scientists – experts in dozens of fields of study worldwide – who say global warming and cooling is a cycle of nature and cannot legitimately be connected to man's activities.

"Of course I believe in global warming, and in global cooling – all part of the natural climate changes that the Earth has experienced for billions of years, caused primarily by the cyclical variations in solar output," said research physicist John W. Brosnahan, who develops remote-sensing instruments for atmospheric science for clients including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA.

However, he said, "I have not seen any sort of definitive, scientific link to man-made carbon dioxide as the root cause of the current global warming, only incomplete computer models that suggest that this might be the case.

"Even though these computer climate models do not properly handle a number of important factors, including the role of precipitation as a temperature regulator, they are being (mis-)used to force a political agenda upon the U.S.," he continued. "While there are any number of reasons to reduce carbon dioxide generation, to base any major fiscal policy on the role of carbon dioxide in climate change would be inappropriate and imprudent at best and potentially disastrous economic folly at the worst."

*The report compiled observations from more than 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen nations who have voiced objections to claims of a "consensus" on "man-made global warming."

Many of the scientists are current or former participants in the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose present officials, along with former Vice President Al Gore, have asserted a definite connection.*

The new report, which comes from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's office of the GOP ranking member, cites the hundreds of opinions issued just this year asserting global warming and man's activities are unrelated.

"Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists," the introduction to the Senate report said. "In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics 'appear to be expanding rather than shrinking.'

*"Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears 'bite the dust,'" the introduction said.*

WorldNetDaily: <I>Hundreds</i> of scientists reject global warming


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'll add to what SINC said--I'll be happy if Sweden becomes oil-free, because there will be more oil for Canada.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> *
> 
> WorldNetDaily: <I>Hundreds</i> of scientists reject global warming*


*

I love the other articles at that site SINC. I especially like how there is articles trying to show that Obama is an anti-white, Nation of Islam sympathizer, an anti-semite, and (gasp!) he wants to reward illegal immigrants by allowing them to get drivers licenses!
{sarcasm}no bias here!{/sarcasm}
WorldNetDaily: Obama's pastor disses Natalee Holloway
WorldNetDaily: Obama aide wants talks with terrorists
Obama takes big risk on driver's license issue

Granted the last one is from the SF Chronicle but the first two are Worldnetdaily Exclusives.*


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

martman said:


> I love the other articles at that site SINC.


Glad you enjoyed the other articles mm, but that one was the only one that interested me. The hoax will one day be revealed to be what it is: scare tactics to sell green products.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

martman said:


> I love the other articles at that site SINC. I especially like how there is articles trying to show that Obama is an anti-white, Nation of Islam sympathizer, an anti-semite, and (gasp!) he wants to *reward illegal immigrants *by allowing them to get drivers licenses!
> {sarcasm}no bias here!{/sarcasm}
> WorldNetDaily: Obama's pastor disses Natalee Holloway
> WorldNetDaily: Obama aide wants talks with terrorists
> ...


Thankfully none of our Canadian news services are biased. Especially the Toronto Star and CBC  

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> Thankfully none of our Canadian news services are biased. Especially the Toronto Star and CBC
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


All news sources are biased because of those who own them but these guys make FOX look balanced by comparison. That is no easy feat. There's bias, then there is *BIAS*.

The CBC and The Star aren't even close to this league.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

martman said:


> All news sources are biased because of those who own them but these guys make FOX look balanced by comparison. That is no easy feat. There's bias, then there is *BIAS*.
> 
> The CBC and The Star aren't even close to this league.


Thats because you view the world through leftist lenses. Its only natural to think the Star and CBC are telling it the way it is. Same would be said for someone reading right wing sources, they'd perceive them to be more balanced in news coverage as well.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Global warming believers can sure get fussed when presented with evidence to the contrary of their beliefs, can't they? If I got upset every time I hear what I simply don't believe, I would likely have another heart attack.

Thus I take it all with a grain of salt. Come to think of it, that too is bad for my heart.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

what evidence? They found a bunch of scientists who disagree and you're holding this up as irrefutable proof that man made global warming doesn't exist?

Now tell me. Why on earth would I take any of that seriously when you or any other denier won't take the leading scientists who -do- say there is proof that global warming is man made and is a serious concern?

If this is significant news, then it'll be interesting to see how that plays out and what is said about it. Or, is it that all mainstream media is left biased??


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> Thats because you view the world through leftist lenses. Its only natural to think the Star and CBC are telling it the way it is. Same would be said for someone reading right wing sources, they'd perceive them to be more balanced in news coverage as well.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


no, it isn't only natural. When the Star starts saying Harper is a member of the KKK then I'll accept your theory.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> what evidence? They found a bunch of scientists who disagree and you're holding this up as irrefutable proof that man made global warming doesn't exist?


Sorry, evidence was a bad word choice. Should have been opinion.

And no, I never said it was "irrefutable proof". Now you are putting words in my mouth.

I simply submit there are even scientists who refute the dire warnings of many other scientists whose views are, in my opinion, simply designed to sell us green products and make corporations fortunes.

Simple as that, but I don't get my shorts in a bunch worrying about it one way or the other.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Sorry, evidence was a bad word choice. Should have been opinion.
> 
> And no, I never said it was "irrefutable proof". Now you are putting words in my mouth.
> 
> ...


Well, so far, I have seen more than once ' prominent ' scientists who were later found to be funded by oil interests, now you've made the charge about scientists who are selling theories to make corporations fortunes. Hmmm, isn't that a bit rich?

Who are these?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Tin hat time GT - Sinc's exactly representative of the Con mindset and the only way around it is to boot them from power and take away control of the resource if they will not bring the pollution under control voluntarily.

They don't listen - they don't think....just this ol "gut feeling" to go by.

No excuse.

NL is not allowed to pollute when producing oil - Alberta should be held to the same standard.

I really hope the Dems slap a pollution tax on oil sands output - that'll wake them up right quick.

Right now they get a free ride from Stelmach and Harper and not one of them cares a tinkers damn that they are profiting from pollution.
They might as well stick their collective mouths over a tar sands tailpipe and inhale if they don't think there is a problem.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I have never once said there is NOT a problem and have listed before the things I have done personally to lower my carbon output. No one I know is disputing the fact we need to lower GHGs.

Fanatics need to stop swallowing, hook, line and sinker the extreme crap science is trying to sell them. The natural cycles of the earth are at play in combination with GHGs. To deny that is to deny history itself. Not all we are being force fed is human induced.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I don't think, anyone has denied that there are naturally occurring changes.

The problem is, despite you saying that we need to lower GHGs, Harper's government is allowing them to *rise*.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Skepticism is part of the scientific method, and it would be surprising if there weren't scientists that remained unconvinced about the anthropogenic CO2 theory of climate change. Where the bias of this article shows is that it fails to note that the *VAST MAJORITY* of scientists in the relevant fields *are* convinced. And moreover, that even if the evidence were weak, the precautionary principle dictates that we should reduce our emissions until we have evidence that we are *NOT* damaging the environment.

What I find perplexing is that a bunch of Right-wingers are opposing this opportunity to create a market for Canadian businesses. The fact that this is also a license to raise taxes would seem to me to make this a politician's wet dream. The only reason I can imagine for a politician to oppose taking strong action on climate change would be if they were being paid^H^H^H^H strongly influenced by the fossil fuel industry, who are about the only losers in the picture (and even _they're_ asking the politicians for action, just on a smaller scale).

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The case for nationalizing as most other nations have done.

*In Norway Statoil has been a shining example of state regulation and participation in industrial and economic activities. The company was established as a operative and fully state owned company, and it soon entered into competition with the large international oil companies, the foremost symbol of international capitalism. From a pro-state perspective, Statoil’s role in the Norwegian petroleum sector was a success story during the seventies. As pointed out in the chapter the external (and internal) conditions were favourable during this decade. The paper then goes on to discuss why and how this state regulatory model was challenged from the early eighties and onwards. The challenges can all be related to different aspects of ‘globalisation’: spread of political ideology, volatility of commodity prices, the role of international organisation, and the changing structure of international industries and multinational companies. Although Statoil was partly privatised in 2001, the core elements of the model regulating the Norwegian oil sector are intact. The model has been reformed, but it still provides the state with a dominant role both in regulating and operating the Norwegian oil sector. The narrative provided is thus in need of explaining stability as much as change.

It should be remembered that oil is not an ordinary commodity

like tea or coffee. Oil is a strategic commodity too important to

be left to the market Sheik Ahmed Zaki Yamani




It's a good read and at this point a copy should go on every MPs desk - it's clear neither Alberta or Ottawa are serving Canadian citizens from a maximizing of income to Canadians or running a clean operation so time's up.......

Statoil - between Nationalisation, Globalisation and Europeanisation

It is completely irresponsible to let Alberta's actions/inactions

a) destroy Canada's reputation in the international arena
b) pollute not only the atmosphere but water resources as well
c) negatively affect other industries and provinces by way of currency volatility and feeding inflation

Time for change ..

There are 30 million people in this nation and I'm sick and tired of catering to Alberta's whining and do nothing attitude.
How is it REMOTELY possible that the tar sands still get subsidies from the Feds.

What a toady attitude toward big oil and the US. It stinks almost as much as the tar sands. 

Click to expand...

*


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> *Hundreds of scientists reject global warming basing policy on carbon dioxide levels 'potentially disastrous economic folly'*
> 
> A new U.S. Senate report documents hundreds of prominent scientists – experts in dozens of fields of study worldwide – who say global warming and cooling is a cycle of nature and cannot legitimately be connected to man's activities.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the link. It was an interesting journey seeing where the truly delusional hang out. 

World Net Daily is quite the fascinating little blog. Some really interesting headlines in this bastion of journalistic integrity such as "Obama aide wants talks with terrorists", "Full text of President's address - Our nation will prosper, our liberty will be secure" and "World Net Daily's Vox Day silences atheist critics". But amongst the plethora of blinking banners asking "Should Christians be armed? The ultimate Biblical exploration of self-defense", hawking keychain nuclear radiation detectors and promoting books that explain the secret global plans of jihadists, I did actually find a link to this "Senate report".

Turns out this wasn't a Senate report at all in the sense that it was endorsed by the US Senate. It was a report provided by Republican Senator James Inhofe head of the *Minority* Senate Committee on the Environment. Of course the actual chair of the Senate Committee on the Environment holds the opposite view and the Committee is involved in putting forth legislation to combat climate change.

Senator Inhofe in addition to being an evolution denier is a particularly rabid climate change denier and his report deceitfully plays fast and loose with the facts. He managed to include many names of scientists who support the conclusion of human induced climate change within his report, but who didn't necessarily agree with various conclusions about the amounts of potential climate change or some other details, and fraudulently puts them down in the debunking column. He snuck his report out after the rest of the Senate has disappeared for Christmas break. Hilariously some of the "hundreds of scientists" listed are TV weathermen and many are economists. What's left is the usual group of thoroughly debunked Exxon funded flat earthers on the list.

This report is nothing more than stale rehashed propaganda, from a US right wing nutjob, I'm surprised that a news professional such as SINC didn't check out his information sources a little more carefully.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

It's just this kind of irresponsible delusion that feeds the Cons in Ottawa and Alberta. Time to chase them back to the hill billy caves they emerged from and Doris can keep a look out for dinosaurs.










Economics | Oil Sands Truth: Shut down the Tar Sands


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Oil is too important a commmodity to be left to governmnt bungling. That's why Statoil privatized a large percentage of its shares.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> Thats because you view the world through leftist lenses. Its only natural to think the Star and CBC are telling it the way it is. Same would be said for someone reading right wing sources, they'd perceive them to be more balanced in news coverage as well.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


You obviously haven't gone to check out this website.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

martman said:


> You obviously haven't gone to check out this website.


Actually this site was just one of hundreds of right wing blogs that jumped for joy and picked up on Sen. Inhofe's press release in December. It was wacko blogs like this that helped to spread Inhofe's disinformation throughout the net. Some that I saw were far worse than WorldNetDaily. I don't think anyone would want to try and defend blogs like this as responsible or unbiased sources.

Well, I guess they might try, while clutching their keychain nuclear fallout detector.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Oil is too important a commmodity to be left to governmnt bungling.


Private bungling is better? How is it that profit-driven corporations accountable to share holders are going to do a better job of managing a non-renewable natural resource and protecting the environment than publicly accountable elected officials?

The free market does a great job optimizing, but the constraints have to be set or the optimization simply maximizes consumption of resources. One can argue that maximized consumption is good in certain markets, but it certainly isn't here.

I favor strong governmental control over natural resource extraction and marketing. It's one of the few areas where I think private ownership makes things worse.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I argue that maximizing consumption of oil is a good thing. As the resource becomes more scarce and the price rises to unacceptable levels, new technologies will enter the market on a firm footing. Better this happen sooner than later.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I argue that maximizing consumption of oil is a good thing. As the resource becomes more scarce and the price rises to unacceptable levels, new technologies will enter the market on a firm footing. Better this happen sooner than later.


Right... so imagine, hypothetically, that there's still lots of oil left (so the resource remains cheap), but that consuming it is damaging the environment (which we currently have no good way of valuing). What would happen in a free market? What would happen in a free market with legislative constraints against damaging the environment or favoring other energy sources?

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc: The majority of scientists say we will soon be out of oil. I thought a majority was supposed to be the mark of "good" science? Are you a "limited oil supply denier"?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

martman said:


> You obviously haven't gone to check out this website.


I've seen the site before and Worldnetdaily is certainly right wing BIASED, probably on par with the left wing BIAS from the likes of Rabble.ca. I don't think either pretend to be balanced.
However, the mainstream media is also biased (to a lesser extent) but they just pretend not to be.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> There are 30 million people in this nation and I'm sick and tired of catering to Alberta's whining and do nothing attitude.


Not nearly as sick and tired as I am of the relentless rants and calls to nationalize OUR resource from eastern residents.

Suck it up. We'll deal with it in our own way.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

OUR?

Last time I checked, this is Canada. What would have happened if Toronto said to hell with the rest of you we'll keep our tax dollars right here thank you.

'our' resources also include what's left of our environment. So when when another province says it's their right to screw it up unheeded for the rest of us, it's time to put the screws to it if that province can't get it together to do it themselves.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> What would have happened if Toronto said to hell with the rest of you we'll keep our tax dollars right here thank you.


Tax dollars and oil resources are not comparable items. What if Toronto said "We'll keep our head offices here, along with our financial markets and stock exchanges..." which, I guess, they already do. 

What was that thing that Toronto shares with the rest of the country, again?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> OUR?
> 
> Last time I checked, this is Canada.


Yes OUR.

"Canada's constitution grants the provinces control over their natural resources and gives them the right to levy direct taxes on them."

Is that "our" enough?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

This is an interesting thread. Of course, the concept of provincial "ownership" of natural resources ought to be balanced by the concept of responsibility for cross-border pollution arising from the "management" of certain of those resources. Alas, pollution respects no borders and so there is no clear mechanism for determining provincial rights vs. obligations. But we should be struggling to define one all the same. Talk of presumed rights without similar acknowledgement of attendant responsibilities is nothing more than reckless political posturing.

Groovetube: some of the Western attitude towards disposal of natural resources stem from the bitter sting of the 70s and the National Energy Program - the implementation of which pissed off a great many Western Canadians and earned Trudeau a certain undying notoriety.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Tax dollars and oil resources are not comparable items. What if Toronto said "We'll keep our head offices here, along with our financial markets and stock exchanges..." which, I guess, they already do.
> 
> What was that thing that Toronto shares with the rest of the country, again?


So free oil, or at least, discounted oil for the rest of Canada?

It's pretty draconian here. The city of Toronto forces all corporations to maintain head offices here. Financial markets are by decree not allowed to move, and all of the revenues generated within the city of Toronto is not distributed whatsoever outside of the city limits, and no one in this country sees anything from the economic prosperity of Toronto.

What was the point you were trying to make again?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Yes OUR.
> 
> "Canada's constitution grants the provinces control over their natural resources and gives them the right to levy direct taxes on them."
> 
> Is that "our" enough?


And I agree with that control.

Except when a province decides it's their right to produce more GHG gases than any other province and to consider allowing that to substantially rise without anyone else in the this country's say in it.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Max said:


> Groovetube: some of the Western attitude towards disposal of natural resources stem from the bitter sting of the 70s and the National Energy Program - the implementation of which pissed off a great many Western Canadians and earned Trudeau a certain undying notoriety.


I remember it well. Visiting Alberta then was interesting when someone knew you were from Ontario.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Max gets it. Any move to take control of western resources will be the spur to a real separatist threat in this country.

The wounds of the NEP run deep and are far from forgotten. The west would separate before they allowed nationalization of its resources.

Trust me on this.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> The majority of scientists say we will soon be out of oil.


What part of "hypothetical" are you having trouble understanding? 


> I thought a majority was supposed to be the mark of "good" science


Then you're mistaken. Science does not respect the popularity of ideas any more than it respects ideas without evidence.

That being said, when a large community of scientists grapple with a complex problem over the course of many years, and in the process accumulate a great deal of data which drives them to a consensus agreement on a theoretical framework, as is the case for anthropogenic climate change, the chances that they're right are far greater than the chances that they're wrong.

So it seems that you're conflating the reasonable course of action for society and policy makers with respect to interpreting and acting on scientific theories, and the process of developing scientific theories. I'm not arguing the science here (it's not my field), I'm arguing how we, as a society should act on the warnings a large scientific community is giving us (rather like the warnings Einstein and many other great nuclear physicists tried to raise about the proliferation of atomic weapons after WWII).

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> So free oil, or at least, discounted oil for the rest of Canada?
> 
> It's pretty draconian here. The city of Toronto forces all corporations to maintain head offices here. Financial markets are by decree not allowed to move, and all of the revenues generated within the city of Toronto is not distributed whatsoever outside of the city limits, and no one in this country sees anything from the economic prosperity of Toronto.
> 
> What was the point you were trying to make again?


And what does Alberta "force" or "not force?" This is faulty parallelism. Withholding tax dollars generated in Toronto is not the same as demanding nationalization of a resource which belongs, constitutionally, to another province.


----------



## CamCanola (Jan 26, 2004)

SINC said:


> Max gets it. Any move to take control of western resources will be the spur to a real separatist threat in this country.
> 
> The wounds of the NEP run deep and are far from forgotten. The west would separate before they allowed nationalization of its resources.
> 
> Trust me on this.


SINC, you never fail to NOT surprise me. I would pay you money to separate from this nation. I hear there's a giant island of garbage bags floating in the Pacific up for grabs. If you want to quit this country because you can't take it anymore then just do it, stop talking about it for decades. SINC says quitting your country is OK. Trust him on this...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> And what does Alberta "force" or "not force?" This is faulty parallelism. Withholding tax dollars generated in Toronto is not the same as demanding nationalization of a resource which belongs, constitutionally, to another province.


MF again I don't know what you are arguing about. I have never said a provinces resources should be nationalized, only that as a country we should to some degree benefit from from the prosperity (which we often do) and all have a say when a province is polluting 'OUR' environment more than everybody else.

Hopefully, that clears things up.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I do find it somewhat interesting that we have not 1 but 2 provinces that get pretty testy and threaten separation when they don't get their way. I'm still wondering when it will be when the 'center of the universe' gets that whiney.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> And what does Alberta "force" or "not force?" This is faulty parallelism. Withholding tax dollars generated in Toronto is not the same as demanding nationalization of a resource which belongs, constitutionally, to another province.


I don't believe that the oil "belongs" to Alberta, it belongs to all Canadians. The control of the resource is in their hands both constitutionally and because of tradition. AFAIK, provinces in Canada are not autonomous entities that agreed to lend their support to a federal government, like the United States. This isn't the United Provinces of Canada. 

If they don't take proper care of the resource according to federal environmental standards, then I think a valid argument could be made for compelling them to do so. With the danger of oil sands making a wasteland of huge areas of northern AB, not to mention the carbon output, I would say environmental concern trumps big oil ownership and any sense that the land and resource belong to those that happen to live within the borders of the province.

If I'm not mistaken wasn't Alberta originally a unilateral creation of the Canadian government? It certainly wasn't an entity that agreed to join in with Canada, and was mostly unpopulated at the time of its creation, so I would say that any arguments about separation are not terribly valid.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *This paper begins by surveying the transformations in resource curse literature, a body of research demonstrating that resource dependence, especially dependence on oil, results in slower or poorer political and economic development.* I argue the standard literature is incomplete given that it misses environmental outcomes, a crucial point in evaluating development projects, and works from a limited body of cases at an overly broad level of analysis. Responding to these gaps in the literature, the rest of the paper focuses on the institutional decision making processes surrounding Alberta’s tar sands developments and suggests how these prevent a thorough consideration of environmental impacts. This text represents the theoretical framework and initial empirical results of my current dissertation research comparing North American resource curse experiences and policy responses to them in four strongly oil-dependent, subnational governments: Alberta, Newfoundland and Labrador, Alaska, and Louisiana.
> 
> “Oil is fantastic and induces fantasies. […] it created, in practice, a culture of miracles…
> Oil wealth had the power of a myth.” José Ignacio Cabrujas, Venezuelan writer, director and actor
> ...


..................



> Conclusion
> What does resource curse theory help us understand about the Alberta case? Most obviously, it draws attention to the costs associated with Alberta’s dependence on oil that lead or may lead to future economic and political decline. Specifically, if we rethink the theory in terms of environmental risks, *Alberta exemplifies the extreme environmental costs associated with economic growth, costs that will mostly likely burden those who did not benefit from the initial developments.* Reclamation is a prominent example: of the 3000 square kilometres of boreal forest that will be severely disrupted by tar sands projects, it is doubtful that much will be reclaimed by industry. After forty years of these developments, “no operations have received a reclamation certificate” (although Suncor claims it has reclaimed 9% of the total land it has disturbed) (Woynillowicz et al. 2005, 38). Who will bear these costs and when?
> Also, applying this theory might offer an explanation for the democratic deficit in Alberta. We might account for the current “political dynasty” effect in the province by the fact that oil revenues have been controlled and spent strategically by one dominant political faction (the Progressive Conservatives) over a long period of time (since 1971). *Is Alberta one of Karl’s inert “petro-states” where the spending of oil money is replacing accountable governance and resilient development*


Cursed by Oil? Institutions and Environmental Impacts in Alberta's Tar Sands

damned and if it continues you can bet that changes WILL come at the Federal level.

Count on it......


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Your heady stew of academia and philosophy has clouded your vision. Faced with the types of controls you imagine placing on Alberta, that province will leave Confederation.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> MF again I don't know what you are arguing about. I have never said a provinces resources should be nationalized, only that as a country we should to some degree benefit from from the prosperity (which we often do) and all have a say when a province is polluting 'OUR' environment more than everybody else.
> 
> Hopefully, that clears things up.


It clears things up.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CamCanola said:


> SINC, you never fail to NOT surprise me. I would pay you money to separate from this nation. I hear there's a giant island of garbage bags floating in the Pacific up for grabs. If you want to quit this country because you can't take it anymore then just do it, stop talking about it for decades. SINC says quitting your country is OK. Trust him on this...


I don't believe the dominoes have fallen into place yet--but when they do, you can't say SINC didn't warn everyone.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

An interesting presentation, but nothing more than the opinion of a single Canadian MD.

Hardly a consensus of overall opinion.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

and in case you wondered how.....THIS is how......



> Ottawa Orders Companies To Submit Extensive Info On Air Emissions
> 
> The federal government has imposed significant and complex emissions reporting requirements on large air pollution emitters. Ottawa is gathering much more detailed data on industrial releases of key environmental pollutants emitted in 2006. The stated intention is to gather data for the purpose of drafting clean air regulations. Given the scope of data required, some of the 700-plus large emitters will find it challenging to meet the May 31, 2008 deadline. The reporting forms had not been published by mid- January. CEPA permits the Minister of the Environment to grant extensions of the filing date: a written extension application is required.
> 
> ...


Alberta has a choice of either getting ahead of the curve on this or suffering the consequences from the rest of Canada and from the market/gov in the US where a different breed of cat will be in power in none too short a time.

Count on it....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Alberta has a choice of either getting ahead of the curve on this or suffering the consequences from the rest of Canada and from the market/gov in the US where a different breed of cat will be in power in none too short a time.
> 
> Count on it....


:yawn: :yawn: :yawn: 

More threats.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Your heady stew of academia and philosophy has clouded your vision. Faced with the types of controls you imagine placing on Alberta, that province will leave Confederation.


Even if this were remotely feasible, it wouldn't do anything to solve the problem, it would simply relocate the politics. If cities are egregious polluters, provincial governments have to take action. When provinces are egregious polluters, the federal government is obliged to act. If a country is acting irresponsibly, it's often a very tough problem to solve, especially if it's a big powerful country with a massive military. However even that kind of problem can be solved by the actions of the international community. If Alberta were to separate, it wouldn't be a powerful country by any stretch of the imagination*, and it would be less able to negotiate for special consideration than it is now. Quebec is also in this situation, and that's why they've never separated (despite having a much more reasonably arguable case than Alberta's "we want to make lots of money polluting and we don't want to share the wealth" stance).

This is a great opportunity for some real leadership both in Edmonton and in Ottawa. Alberta should negotiate for federal assistance in developing low-emission long-term extraction plans, whereby the resource is developed at a much slower pace. This is a win-win because both governments can be seen as doing something about GHG, and the long term profits on the oil will only go up if you sell it in a post-peak production market.

Cheers

*Alberta has oil and agriculture... it has negligible manufacturing or value added production, a dinky population (half of which are maritimers who've moved there to make money extracting oil), and an uncanny ability to elect brain-dead politicians. Ironically, they do have three of Canada's largest universities (plus a small one in Lethbridge), so their lack of development isn't due to any lack of ideas or opportunities, it's simply been a long-term lack of vision in the provincial government. Alberta wouldn't last 10 days as an independent country.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Alberta has a choice of either getting ahead of the curve on this or suffering the consequences from the rest of Canada and from the market/gov in the US where a different breed of cat will be in power in none too short a time.


This is really heartwarming. A _different breed_ of cat, yet. So different from each other, this crowd of presidential hopefuls! A beautiful thought, in its naivete.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> :yawn: :yawn: :yawn:
> 
> More threats.


honestly, this is how I've come to view the constant threats I see form Quebecers and Albertans about separation.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> So different from each other, this crowd of presidential hopefuls!


You don't see Huckabee and Romney as different from McCain and Gulliani?

McCain and Obama strike me as far more similar than Obama and Clinton.

But regardless, whoever wins will be a one-term president. The train-wreck hasn't even begun and it's already looking bad for the US economy. So whoever winds up holding Bush's bag is going to have a lot of no-win decisions to make, and they're doomed to go down in history as having presided over a massive collapse in American power and prestige.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Reality sucks eh...too bad....polluter pays and the longer the cons of either clan try to duck it the more adverse the reaction will be.

Suck up that tailpipe spew.........don't like it??.....neither does the rest of the nation or the planet


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Suck up that tailpipe spew.........don't like it??.....neither does the rest of the nation or the planet


If it's harsh chemicals I would agree. Just CO2? I'll suck it up like a man!


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Just CO2? I'll suck it up like a man!


Wanna know how we euthanize mice?  

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Wanna know how we euthanize mice?
> 
> Cheers


Ahhh...so you won't eat animals--you just kill them!


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Ahhh...so you won't eat animals--you just kill them!


Yep.

I see good scientific research as an ethical good that outweighs the ethical value of the mouse's life. I don't see my personal short-term gustatory pleasure as of similar value. I am keenly aware of the possibility for pain and do my utmost to ensure that my research animals live happy, healthy lives, and that their ultimate demise is quick and painless. I also avoid using animals with complex nervous systems as much as possible (my work now uses zebrafish embryos almost exclusively).

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Heartbreaking.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> The attention Norway pays to planning its after-oil economy and promoting economic diversity must strike a chord with many Canadians. But the Canadian who has the most control over the use of the country's oil money is not listening. Mel Knight, Alberta's Energy Minister, said in an interview during a recent visit to London that he does not believe his province has any lessons to take from Norway.
> 
> “First of all, Norway is a country that is a federal jurisdiction. And* if we were to turn over all of our resources in Canada back to the federal government, perhaps they would operate the thing differently.*


Best idea I've heard come out of Alberta in quite a while....:clap:

Better yet turn it over to the Norwegians and let THEM manage the resource for a fee.

Read it and weep at what could be and isn't....

it's good article and Alberta and the Federal Gov of Canada should be embarrassed



> Among oil economies, Norway – the world's third-largest exporter and 10th-largest producer in 2006 – is almost alone in having avoided this fate. As oil has boomed, so has everything else, and it has boomed in areas that will continue to generate economic growth when the oil revenues are gone.* This is no accident: For Norwegians, this is a story of planning, self-discipline and a long learning process.*
> 
> While other countries have become apathetic and uncompetitive during petroleum booms, *Norway appears near the top of every international index of competitiveness and entrepreneurship.*
> 
> The “Norwegian model” has become a topic widely studied, but rarely imitated, among other oil nations. The hotels of Oslo these days are populated with Kuwaitis, Saudis, Kazakhs and Brazilians who have come here to examine the Nordic way.


globeandmail.com: Frugal Norway saves for life after the boom


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm glad I don't live in Norway.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

why? Because it's cold?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Maybe Norway will buy Puerto Rico from the US when China starts calling in all the US debt and the US is desperate for a cash infusion. I'd move to a nice Caribbean Island governed by Norway in a second.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> why? Because it's cold?


No, because of this:

Lutefisk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> No, because of this:
> 
> Lutefisk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


that's what I thought.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> No, because of this:
> 
> Lutefisk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Sorry to contribute to the hijacking of this thread, but I clicked on MF's link and I thought this paragraph was too funny to not share:

"Lutefisk is not food, it is a weapon of mass destruction. It is currently the only exception for the man who ate everything. Otherwise, I am fairly liberal, I gladly eat worms and insects, but I draw the line on lutefisk.

Lutefisk is the Norwegians' attempt at conquering the world. When they discovered that Viking raids didn't give world supremacy, they invented a meal so terrifying, so cruel, that they could scare people to become one's subordinates."


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Somebody gets it.....and drivers are whining about a $1 a day carbon tax



> *SUV Owners Must Pay $50 Per Day to Drive in London*
> January 31, 2008
> StumbleUpon
> 
> ...


SUV Owners Must Pay $50 Per Day to Drive in London : Environmental News Blog | Environmental Graffiti

:clap:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

For once I agree with you MacDoc. People who drive those behemoth Hummers and dually trucks daily, should pay.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> For once I agree with you MacDoc.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I agree as well, but not on the basis of CO2--they take up too much space on London's narrow streets. I also think that people should be charged extra on airlines if they exceed a certain average weight. User pays--no excuses--'bout right.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Ever the proud contrarian, I see.

And hey: _Londoon..._ is that, like, an alt-limey thing?

Hmmmm... should people who are small and featherweight pay less for air fare? Tell us, MF.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> Hmmmm... should people who are small and featherweight pay less for air fare? Tell us, MF.


Yes!


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

LOL

I thought so. How do you propose it be fairly set up? Holy can of words, Batman!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Since they weigh the luggage already, they can just have the passenger and luggage weighed together--a rebate or surcharge is immediately applied to the passenger's account!


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

And there you go - problem solved!

Next, we need to sic you onto world hunger. Go MF, go!


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Since they weigh the luggage already, they can just have the passenger and luggage weighed together--a rebate or surcharge is immediately applied to the passenger's account!


I agree completely. But then I'm 5'2", and while I'm starting to get chubby (note to self: must make time to do some exercise), I'm still a lot smaller than your average guy.

I expect many would argue that this is size-ism, but it's absolutely fair and is a direct reflection of the cost of the service they're purchasing, so there really shouldn't be an argument.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> And there you go - problem solved!
> 
> Next, we need to sic you onto world hunger. Go MF, go!


This is only PART of the solution:


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *The Alberta elephant*
> 
> Feb 01, 2008 04:30 AM
> We learned this week that four provinces – Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia and Manitoba – are in talks about forming a common front on climate change.
> ...


....YET!!!!....EVER!!!??????










I see Exxon alone netted $3.2 billion from Canada last year and $40 billion world wide......ya think maybe it could clean up it's act.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Those bastards at Exxon; all they did was find the oil, build the infrastructure to extract and refine it, then market and deliver it--just nothing.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

seeing you defend Exxon really puts things into perspective.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Exxon is the devil. Oil is a spotted serpent!


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

LOL

_Spotted serpent_. I dig that one. Not that I'm agreeing with your defending poor Exxon, of all the outlandish things. But great jousting, sir.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Perhaps side show distractions is the concept you are looking for. 










...._an MF Productions...._

••

Exxon's not the problem....allowing Exxon to profit on polluting is the problem....and the useless government we have in Alberta and Ottawa that lets them get away with it....


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

No, I wasn't looking for that concept MacDoc, but thanks for guessing all the same.

I expect that your continued pouring of scorn on the Albertan government will do precious little to endear many Western Canadians to your cause. I mean, hating Ottawa they get - it's a national sport, after all. But bringing up ghosts of the NEP and talk of nationalizing the oil & gas industries? Lots and lots of ingrained opposition to that. Here, there and everywhere.

"No excuse" muttered as a condemning punctuation to every second post on the topic won't win over anyone save the already committed.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I'll take a wee guess and say it's likely of little consequence really.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I could care less.....much prefer to rub the noses of uncouth in it - if they don't get it by now then continual irritation is the remaining methodology. There's quite enough political rumblings about resource mis-management that a few more twigs on that fire never hurts 
Norway seems quite in the news these days.

The Globe found of sufficient importance to do an 8 part series on the tar sands.

globeandmail.com Special Report: Shifting Sands



> *We're exploiting this province way too fast*,” says Mr. Groot. “In 50 years, we will know a lot more about what this has done. But then there won't be any more land left.”
> 
> This is what angers environmentalists and an increasingly vocal segment of Albertans: The oil sands projects have grown in number and size so suddenly that there hasn't been time to consider the long-term environmental costs. Groups like the Pembina Institute, an Alberta-based environmental think tank, have proposed a moratorium on new projects until technology can catch up. Greenpeace, which opened an Edmonton office last summer, is campaigning for a complete halt to all development.
> 
> ...


Even former Alberta premiere Lougheed questioned the pace and responsible handling on CBC the other day.

There IS no excuse ...I see it's taken hold nicely.....and the volume of disgust is only going to get louder at home and around the world until the problem is addressed with more than just soothing words and "somewhere out there" intensity nostrums.

Harper's fav bud Howard was tossed from power and even lost his own seat despite the booming Australian economy largely due to foot dragging on climate issues.
Aussies knew there was no excuse either........NEXT.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

"There IS no excuse... I see it's taken hold nicely."

I was commenting on your tactics. I'll thank you to remember that my noting your typical ones and your message resonating with the masses aren't quite the same thing.

_______________________________

Been reading the Globe series. Sort of in a _spotted_ way, you could say, but no matter. Good stuff. It does appear that the economic boom in the west is at the same time an eco-bust. But new tech is rushing to the rescue... the whole notion of stuffing the carbon back into the same deep subterranean spaces where oil and gas once was is an intriguing one. Even if you don't believe in what results from massive carbon loading, the visible pollutants and scorning of the land ought to give pause. All that fresh water being used has to exact a large environmental penalty.

As for Lougheed, he has to play both sides against the middle because he's a politician and he has to at least appear concerned about the many issues of the day, lest he lose political capital. In other words, I am not at all certain the leopard has changed his spots.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I love this. MacDoc reading the newspapers and doing searches on "Norway". 

"Bloody hell, what's this? Norway is quite the news item these days!" The entire world's political system is twisted around the little pinky of climate issues.

Apparently, the whole world looks a lot like a sports arena if you watch football 24/7.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

always the extremist.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Denialist.....

I just conjured up the 8 day article in the Globe to annoy MF - 'pears successful. 

love the squirming.....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Ahh, we are no longer merely in denial--we have taken on the vocation of "denialist."


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

MacDoc - I am shocked and amazed that it was you who conjured up those articles - well done! And here I'd thought it was the Globe's handiwork. Goes to show you never know who _really_ pulls the strings.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

perhaps if we neutralized Macdoc the global warming problem would go away.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Most people would brush me off as a staunch Conservative and as such, certainly presume what my views might be on environmental issues.

For the record, Alberta has changed dramatically over the past 10 years in particular.

I was an acquaintance of Ralph for a dozen odd years or so, but would never claim him as a friend.

As I continue to produce more gray hairs than gray matter of late, I find my views of the actions of the Alberta Conservatives less to my liking every day.

We have dropped the ball on the environment. Not only have we dropped it, we used a 10 pin bowling ball as a choice to drop, which is always certain to leave a dent in the policy floor. That alone has made us the scourge of the country and perhaps even the world.

Current premier Ed Stelmach is a rookie and was a poor choice to lead the party. He is not polished in public speaking and comes off as a country bumpkin in his media appearances.

The oil sands are a fabulous resource for this province, but more and more Albertans are asking, at what cost?

Can we learn from other countries as others suggest? Absolutely.

Do Albertans, at any level, react kindly to suggestions we can learn from little old Norway for example? Not bloody likely.

While Norway may in fact be doing some things that have resulted in relative success on their home turf, they are widely regarded here as neophytes when it comes to having any educated input into oil sands technology.

Their successful policies are based on a far less complex energy industry and while their results are impressive, they are not in any way comparable to our situation in the minds of average Albertans, and more particularly in the, sometime feeble minds of the current crop of Conservative members of the legislature.

While we are validly criticized for our GHG reduction plan, and perhaps rightly so, it is vastly different from anything Norway, or any other country has experienced as no one else has any experience with oil sands technology.

Where we have gone wrong is the result of a government in power too long who have misgivings about going to the electorate with any plan that might do short term harm to the economy. The truth be known, they have misread the mood of Albertans and should be promoting, nay enforcing, while they still have the power to do so, much more stringent CO2 curtailment. That alone would pave the road to re-election faster than any other pre-election money spreading they are involved in today. Sadly, they know not the pulse of the average voter.

Stelmach knows only the old school politics of vote buying. To bad the party can't trump the leader. It certainly should in this case.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> MacDoc - I am shocked and amazed that it was you who conjured up those articles - well done!


Such conjuring cannot hold. The false reality will collapse into chaos.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Caution...article mentions Norway...surreptiously planted in Canada's National Newspaper by person or persons unknown.....




> *Parochial Canada has a lot to learn from other nations*
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> From Friday's Globe and Mail
> February 1, 2008 at 4:59 AM EST
> ...


Toss the lot......


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> Most people would brush me off as a staunch Conservative


Never! Not in a million years! No!... well... okay... sometimes... a bit.



> We have dropped the ball on the environment. Not only have we dropped it, we used a 10 pin bowling ball as a choice to drop, which is always certain to leave a dent in the policy floor.


What a great metaphor. Did you come up with this? I love it. :love2: 



> The oil sands are a fabulous resource for this province, but more and more Albertans are asking, at what cost?
> 
> Can we learn from other countries as others suggest? Absolutely.
> 
> Do Albertans, at any level, react kindly to suggestions we can learn from little old Norway for example? Not bloody likely.


Fair enough. A made-in-Alberta solution would be the best outcome, but a solution has to be conceived, and implemented ASAP. Good for you for recognizing the problem, and bonus points for recognizing that it's isn't trivial.

Cheers


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc, the metaphor is mine, but you're welcome to use it anytime.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Most people would brush me off as a staunch Conservative and as such, certainly presume what my views might be on environmental issues.
> 
> For the record, Alberta has changed dramatically over the past 10 years in particular.
> 
> ...


thanks Sinc, it's good to hear from someone living there showing the concern others in others areas of Canada have regarding the issue. I have aunts and cousins all in Alberta and they feel the same.

I don't equate conservatism with a lack of concern for the environment, though it's hard not to given what we se from governments that call themselves conservatives.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sure  Oil extraction from the North Sea is just a cake walk.

The oil industry WANTS a carbon tax so the playing field is level, they know it's coming, they know it's here.
Alberta's Pembina Reasearch Council says going to zero carbon extraction costs can be done for as little as $3 a barrel.

Sequestration is NOT rocket science.

Like it's new eh



> MORE carbon dioxide is making its way into our atmosphere as we burn fossil fuels and deforest tropical lands. Most experts agree that increased emissions of greenhouse gases-especially carbon dioxide-are responsible for an overall warming of our planet over the last 150 years.
> 
> *In 1991, Norway became the first country to impose a federal tax on atmospheric CO2 emissions from combustion-based point sources such as coal-fired power plants. Shortly thereafter, this tax-$55 per ton of CO2-was extended to include emissions associated with offshore oil and gas production*. The day is not far off when other countries, possibly including the U.S., will follow Norway's lead, thus creating a strong financial incentive to develop strategies for safe disposal of CO2 waste streams.
> 
> ...


https://www.llnl.gov/str/Johnson.html

So they've had a carbon tax since 1991 that is four times what is being CONSIDERED by the dolts in Alberta and have a resource fund that dwarfs Alberta's as well.

Talk about lack of vision, management and leadership.......

Nothing but whining and wringing of hands and flat out "won't listen" from Harper when his own committee tells him what's needed.

Laughing stock is too kind......


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

You can quit the Norway stuff any time. We won't be going their way. 

It's tiresome, overused and repeated to death. This is one case where repetition shows a fixed and unbendable position. Good thing Alberta doesn't think the same way. 

But we will work it out, and without any help from Norway.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Is there some sort of psychological condition that describes an unhealthy fixation with Norway?

I would agree that one thing Canadians could "flock" to Norway to learn about is how to tax its own people to death.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> Where we have gone wrong is the result of a government in power too long who have misgivings about going to the electorate with any plan that might do short term harm to the economy. The truth be known, they have misread the mood of Albertans and should be promoting, nay enforcing, while they still have the power to do so, much more stringent CO2 curtailment.


I might be wrong here SINC, or may have misread your posts, but am I getting from you that you now think there is a valid reason to reduce the amount of CO2 we pump into the atmosphere? If so I applaud your change in thinking.

As a Canadian and as someone who would like us to attempt to stave off and/or soften the impact of world wide climate changes I am concerned about the viability of the oil sands. I fervently hope that competitiveness of renewable energy and increased levies on fossil fuels, making them less competitive will curtail our society's need to extract that oil. 

If I was an Albertan, especially if I was living in the more northern part of the province I would be very concerned about the growth of the oil sands. Besides the danger of their CO2 output, this method of extracting oil has the potential to cause massive harm to much of Northern Alberta's environment. In terms of water pollution alone I can't see how increased oil sands production is viable. 

But even as a Canadian, since Alberta is part of my country too, I am very much against us widening our use of the oil sands. We simply cannot trade off temporary present economic gain against future environmental degradation. The future belongs to other people than those of us who will benefit in the present.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Somebody gets it...too bad governments won't listen



> *EU 'should ban inefficient cars'*
> By Roger Harrabin
> BBC environment analyst
> 
> ...


BIG somebody....... :clap:

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | EU 'should ban inefficient cars'

Put the rules in place. level the playing field and get on with it.....

*conviction*.......something seriously missing in Ottawa and Alberta when it comes to dealing with GHG control.

no excuse.

•••

Oil sands ?? put a $60 a ton carbon tax on it *right now!!!!* and watch the solutions appear.

Solve Harpo's looming deficit too.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I might be wrong here SINC, or may have misread your posts, but am I getting from you that you now think there is a valid reason to reduce the amount of CO2 we pump into the atmosphere? If so I applaud your change in thinking.


GA, you've misread my "intent" is all.

I have never denied there is a problem. Still don't, but I do object to the "scare tactics" being used by too many organizations world wide to spread fear and make money on carbon trading.

I have no use for any "carbon trading scheme" as they are but guilt trip reducers and a "feel good" solution.

Having said that, neither the feds nor our provincial gov't. does enough to be taken seriously. We can reduce carbon emissions with at home solutions spending at home dollars on ourselves.

If you even mention buying carbon credits abroad as a solution, you lose my support in a heartbeat.

I'll step aside now so people can lob another insult at Albertans and boast about pipsqueak Norway who have zero credibility regarding Alberta's oil sands.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Oil sands ?? put a $60 a ton carbon tax on it *right now!!!!* and watch the solutions appear.


Yeah that'll show those oil producers--and then they''ll show US when the tax is passed on to consumers. Great way to slay the deficit, Doc-o--make ordinary Canadians pay for it.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I think, maybe, you might be figuring this out...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Polluter pays - why what a concept.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

it's astounding to me how the idea just doesn't quite get traction. I've always known that really, the only way to change anything, be it our garbage habits vs recycling, hydro usage, polluting with our cars etc., is to get the masses to vote with their dollars. You are never going to get companies to voluntarily change en masse. That, is a pipe dream.

When our landfills are full, and we start charging people significantly for each bag of garbage, it'll be amazing how quickly we'll see less packaging etc., when consumers start voting with their dollars to save money on garbage. 

So it's rather amusing to see the caterwauling about how consumers will see an increase. Duh!


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

MF, when has a deficit _not_ been paid ultimately by the tax-paying citizenry? The government, no matter how efficient or lean, has always acted as an intermediary - whose salary of course is coughed up by the taxpayers.

Who else do you imagine is involved?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MAX: Of course the average person will pay for it. I take exception with MacDoc selling his dreams as a tax on Exxon. That has some populist appeal, but is a disingenuous way to describe it.

GrooveTube: If we chose landfill as the method of choice for disposing of all of our trash, Canada could select a few secure abandoned mine sites and spend the next 1000 years trying to fill them. We simply wouldn't run out of room. Our trash disposal fees are the result of a government monopoly setting a price higher than the market would othwerwise bear.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

LOL

I see you've taken to shouting my name. Oh dear. OK, I see what you're saying - you're objecting to MaDoc's framing of the idea - a punitive tax on nasty old Big Oil. Gotcha.

On to your point aimed at GrooveTube. You are grossly oversimplifying your landfill proposition. NIMBYism would intervene at every turn. Nor do I believe private disposal systems ensure safety any more than government-run systems do... there is equal temptation for cost-cutting shortcuts and wishful thinking that there be no 'accidents' related to all that oft-toxic garbage being shipped via truck/rail/whatever.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

max (quietly): There would be no more guarantee of safety in a private system, I agree. Again, I'm referring to the framing of the argument. There are communities, landfill sites, and large mining operations that would be glad to take the trash for a fee--and we couldn't fill them if we tried. The price charged by the city bears little relationship to a shortage of places to put it. The notion that we have simply run out of room for trash is not accurate.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> MAX: Of course the average person will pay for it. I take exception with MacDoc selling his dreams as a tax on Exxon. That has some populist appeal, but is a disingenuous way to describe it.
> 
> GrooveTube: If we chose landfill as the method of choice for disposing of all of our trash, Canada could select a few secure abandoned mine sites and spend the next 1000 years trying to fill them. We simply wouldn't run out of room. Our trash disposal fees are the result of a government monopoly setting a price higher than the market would othwerwise bear.


Apparently that was already tried. Didn't fly though, for many many good reasons. Reasons I'm sure you have all sorts of rebuttals for, that you'd be more than happy to let us know about.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> max (quietly): There would be no more guarantee of safety in a private system, I agree. Again, I'm referring to the framing of the argument. There are communities, landfill sites, and large mining operations that would be glad to take the trash for a fee--and we couldn't fill them if we tried. The price charged by the city bears little relationship to a shortage of places to put it. The notion that we have simply run out of room for trash is not accurate.


HEADLINE NEWS: This just in. Macfury of ehmac.ca fame, has astounded fellow Torontonians with the unbelievable revelation that there is no landfill crisis. The fact that we are shipping our garbage at great expense to Michigan is a socialist scam with liberal ties in order to get more of your tax dollars. More details to follow.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

MF, your faith in the ability of private enterprise to efficiently solve all our ills, garbage disposal included, is touching. It's also very doctrinaire... about as bad as citizens who expect the government to take care of them from cradle to grave. Two extremities located on the same spectrum.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

:clap:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MAX (shouting again) I never suggested that this was a case of public vs. private enterprise. I was suggesting waste disposal options that could be exercised by government. It's no secret that the costs associated with waste disposal are inflated through government fiat, but the options for disposal remain the same.

I happened to be part of a team studying waste options in Ontario. The use of abandoned mines to store certain types of waste was actually considered the best from an environmental and technical standpoint according to consultant reports--it wasn't politically expedient to take their suggestions. There are Ontario municipalities who would very much like to be paid to take Toronto's trash for less money than it costs to ship to Michigan, but their offers aren't being considered.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Macfury said:


> There are Ontario municipalities who would very much like to be paid to take Toronto's trash for less money than it costs to ship to Michigan, but their offers aren't being considered.


Didn't this happen with the new TTC subways cars too? Miller time has a habit of not tendering out contracts in favour of lining the pockets of those he chooses.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Why limit your tin hat theories to have at least some semblance of fact.



> At some point during Monday's debate on buying subway trains in a sole-source deal with Bombardier possibly when the reheated rhetoric (it's not democracy if everyone doesn't get to say again what everyone just said) was at its height it dawned on me that those arguing for the deal actually had yet to raise a single argument against an open-tender process.
> 
> Don't get me wrong. I fully support *the $710 million deal that promises to create 300 new Bombardier jobs in Thunder Bay, give us 234 safer and more reliable cars, generate regional wealth, lower TTC capital costs and toss more income tax to the province and feds, the prime funders.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

That's right MacDoc--the mayor has a "hands off" policy when it comes to the TTC and other independent bodies. At least in theory...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

It must be a godsend to have examples as to why the conservatives should not have to live up to their loud proclamations of openness, transparency, and accountability. I mean they pretty much based their whole election campaign on it last time, and they barely squeaked into a minority!

Can you just imagine?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> GA, you've misread my "intent" is all.
> 
> I have never denied there is a problem. Still don't, but I do object to the "scare tactics" being used by too many organizations world wide to spread fear and make money on carbon trading.
> 
> ...


So, just to be clear, you do believe the science that says humans are causing climate change by releasing too much CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere? You just think that the threat isn't as grave or immediate as some have said, including the scientists reporting for the UN Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change? 

Sorry if I misunderstood, I wasn't getting that impression from your posts of the last few years. It appeared to me that you thought the whole notion of human-caused climate change was bunk, like MF does.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> "scare tactics" being used by too many organizations world wide to* spread fear and make money on carbon trading*.


Supporting details?? ..or is this just another "gut feeling" to cover up the head in sand attitude evinced all along. 
I'm sure Lord Stern is all part of a conspiracy to pick Alberta's dirty pockets. 

Pipsqueak Norway - sure......almost 1/2 Trillion dollars in their oil fund from a well managed program, terrific green progress and 



> Among oil economies, Norway – _*the world's third-largest exporter and 10th-largest producer in 2006[/b*_*]*


*

Love those realistic world views.......*


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc: If we charged the tax rates Norway does, we'd have a half-trillion doillar nest egg as well. When you've nationalized half the country's economy and doubled the price of gas to your own citizens, it's not much of a trick. Norway's economy tanks every time the price of oil declines.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Norway's economy tanks every time the price of oil declines.


I don't think anyone has to worry about significant oil price declines into the future. Even if we were somehow to completely get off oil as a fuel, this finite resource will still be highly prized for manufacturing plastics.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I smell another headline news alert...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Hard to say where the price of oil will go with everyone embracing the windmills of their minds!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

At least Australia is getting into catch up after Harpo's buddy Howard was run out of town.



> *Big emitters risk criminal penalties*
> 
> Matthew Warren, Environment writer | February 05, 2008
> 
> ...


:clap:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I really like it when OTHER countries adopt these schemes.:clap:


----------

