David Suzuki, Paris Hilton, both are celebrities
Lots of anti-Suzuki ranting going on in the blogosphere. Some of it deserved. He has good and bad days like the rest of us. But I don't trust his agenda.
Dr David Suzuki posted a poll...
Can Canada meet its Kyoto target?
Yes, and we can do it through domestic reductions. 1912 (9.00%)
Yes, but we'll have to buy some international credits to do it. 374 (1.76%)
No, but we should still try. 774 (3.64%)
No, so we shouldn't bother trying. 18186 (85.60%)
The poll went missing soon after these results.
You know, if you are a scientist, and you collect data, you present the data even if it contradicts your hypothesis.
Especially if it contradicts your hypothesis.
Harper, Dion and the rest have all put out their platforms on the environment. Some are a little friendlier to business, depending on which business, but all have a greener responsibility then ever before. But if this poll is to be believed, and I'm not sure it is, it means the political-cats are out of step with the majority of self-serving Canadian citizens.
I'm with the 3.6% that think we can't but should still try. I don't believe we're responsible for global warming anymore then I believe we're responsible for global cooling. I remember smog so bad I couldn't see across the Toronto skyline when I was a kid. Reading "Down and Out In Paris and London" by George Orwell he relates the same thing about coal smog. As does Charles Dickens in "Oliver Twist. Pollution, as bad as it's gotten, isn't anything new or recent, but it has expanded wider and broader where every big city no matter where has it's x-factor of contributing. Doing what we can to decrease it can only be in our own best interest.
Back when the Vikings came to North America they found they could grow grapes in Vineland, just as they could back in Denmark. Have you had a nice Danish wine lately?
Richard Gwyn explains the optimists point of view... "Another reason to wonder about our sudden environmental awareness is that, although little attention has been paid to this, global warming will actually benefit Canadians, on balance.
A warmer climate will lengthen our growing season and so expand our agricultural output. It will melt our Arctic ice, creating opportunities for speedier sea travel to Europe and Asia, and make it possible to increase exploitation of our northern resources. It will also reduce our death rate, which always increases during our winters.
Our unearned luck is not yet complete. One of the most feared of the consequences of global warming - a rise in sea levels - will have little effect on us. As a rich country, we are far better situated to cope with climate change's negative effects than is a poor one, like Bangladesh.
I hate spin and bullshit. When following a conspiracy it's best to follow the money. So who benefits from this new heightened environmental awareness? Big Oil isn't just in the oil business. They're in the energy business. If they can charge a premium for clean energy then there's money to be made. Who's selling wind power? OntarioHydro? Enmax? Who are the biggest manufacturers of wind generating stations? BP? ELF? Who cares, eh?
I see a lot of this enviro-business being conducted as feel-good consumerism. Selling more sweaters, new lightbulbs, new cars... the more you spend, the more it stimulates the economy. The longer BigOil extends the life of the Peak Oil Theory, the longer they can stay relevant and therefore profitable. And hydro will become wind-dro.
If they were serious about the environment they would mention the big energy consumers in your house. I don't mean the furnace. What about the toaster? It trips the breaker whenever it's used at the same time as the microwave, eh? Do we really need burnt bread? Can we make do with cold coffee?
As an aside... I'm surprised to hear the SmartCar is only just now entering the USA market. (And I thought we were late in getting SmartCars). Not with the Mercedes 799cc 3-cylinder inline cdi turbo diesel but with a 698cc 3cylinder gas engine. I suppose the efficiency is relatively equal in emissions but still why screw with something proven?
I don't know who's pocket Suzuki's hands are in. I would guess it's the donations used to fly/bus around the country. But his celebrity is being used effectively to promote one side of the argument while ignoring the hard science.
Dr David Suzuki posted a poll...
Can Canada meet its Kyoto target?
Yes, and we can do it through domestic reductions. 1912 (9.00%)
Yes, but we'll have to buy some international credits to do it. 374 (1.76%)
No, but we should still try. 774 (3.64%)
No, so we shouldn't bother trying. 18186 (85.60%)
The poll went missing soon after these results.
You know, if you are a scientist, and you collect data, you present the data even if it contradicts your hypothesis.
Especially if it contradicts your hypothesis.
Harper, Dion and the rest have all put out their platforms on the environment. Some are a little friendlier to business, depending on which business, but all have a greener responsibility then ever before. But if this poll is to be believed, and I'm not sure it is, it means the political-cats are out of step with the majority of self-serving Canadian citizens.
I'm with the 3.6% that think we can't but should still try. I don't believe we're responsible for global warming anymore then I believe we're responsible for global cooling. I remember smog so bad I couldn't see across the Toronto skyline when I was a kid. Reading "Down and Out In Paris and London" by George Orwell he relates the same thing about coal smog. As does Charles Dickens in "Oliver Twist. Pollution, as bad as it's gotten, isn't anything new or recent, but it has expanded wider and broader where every big city no matter where has it's x-factor of contributing. Doing what we can to decrease it can only be in our own best interest.
Back when the Vikings came to North America they found they could grow grapes in Vineland, just as they could back in Denmark. Have you had a nice Danish wine lately?
Richard Gwyn explains the optimists point of view... "Another reason to wonder about our sudden environmental awareness is that, although little attention has been paid to this, global warming will actually benefit Canadians, on balance.
A warmer climate will lengthen our growing season and so expand our agricultural output. It will melt our Arctic ice, creating opportunities for speedier sea travel to Europe and Asia, and make it possible to increase exploitation of our northern resources. It will also reduce our death rate, which always increases during our winters.
Our unearned luck is not yet complete. One of the most feared of the consequences of global warming - a rise in sea levels - will have little effect on us. As a rich country, we are far better situated to cope with climate change's negative effects than is a poor one, like Bangladesh.
I hate spin and bullshit. When following a conspiracy it's best to follow the money. So who benefits from this new heightened environmental awareness? Big Oil isn't just in the oil business. They're in the energy business. If they can charge a premium for clean energy then there's money to be made. Who's selling wind power? OntarioHydro? Enmax? Who are the biggest manufacturers of wind generating stations? BP? ELF? Who cares, eh?
I see a lot of this enviro-business being conducted as feel-good consumerism. Selling more sweaters, new lightbulbs, new cars... the more you spend, the more it stimulates the economy. The longer BigOil extends the life of the Peak Oil Theory, the longer they can stay relevant and therefore profitable. And hydro will become wind-dro.
If they were serious about the environment they would mention the big energy consumers in your house. I don't mean the furnace. What about the toaster? It trips the breaker whenever it's used at the same time as the microwave, eh? Do we really need burnt bread? Can we make do with cold coffee?
As an aside... I'm surprised to hear the SmartCar is only just now entering the USA market. (And I thought we were late in getting SmartCars). Not with the Mercedes 799cc 3-cylinder inline cdi turbo diesel but with a 698cc 3cylinder gas engine. I suppose the efficiency is relatively equal in emissions but still why screw with something proven?
I don't know who's pocket Suzuki's hands are in. I would guess it's the donations used to fly/bus around the country. But his celebrity is being used effectively to promote one side of the argument while ignoring the hard science.