|
|
Post by Skilly on May 17, 2007 22:34:37 GMT -5
i have those compact flourescent lightbulbs and let me tell you they never die and aren't much more than one of those crappy old type ones. i don't even remember what they're called. other than that, i recycle, and know that cities with a lot of cars and bad air makes my allergies go into overdrive. but we all need to do more, i no longer leave my computer monitor on throughout the night, but turning it off at night for the 5 minute re-boot the next day is the next step. Incandescent ... I believe. I recycle. But not to save the planet, but to give to the local schools so they have money for kids programs, trips, sports, etc. I have programmable thermostats throughout my house. In the process of changing all my light bulbs to the flourescents. (about half done). My father in law is vice-president of the hydro company here in Newfoundland, so I take his lead on way to conserve energy. (I really need to get my house evaluated for heat loss ... I know it isn't very good) But the kicker is no matter what I do, the utility companies are going to get there money because as everyone conserves they raise the rates .... even if it is only 0.001% .. they raise it, because a year can't go by without them raising it. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 18, 2007 7:10:09 GMT -5
i have those compact flourescent lightbulbs and let me tell you they never die and aren't much more than one of those crappy old type ones. i don't even remember what they're called. other than that, i recycle, and know that cities with a lot of cars and bad air makes my allergies go into overdrive. but we all need to do more, i no longer leave my computer monitor on throughout the night, but turning it off at night for the 5 minute re-boot the next day is the next step. Incandescent ... I believe. I recycle. But not to save the planet, but to give to the local schools so they have money for kids programs, trips, sports, etc. I have programmable thermostats throughout my house. In the process of changing all my light bulbs to the flourescents. (about half done). My father in law is vice-president of the hydro company here in Newfoundland, so I take his lead on way to conserve energy. (I really need to get my house evaluated for heat loss ... I know it isn't very good) But the kicker is no matter what I do, the utility companies are going to get there money because as everyone conserves they raise the rates .... even if it is only 0.001% .. they raise it, because a year can't go by without them raising it. Of course it's going to rise. I don't know about NewFoundland but in Ontario, they are going to pay "green energy" at 4 to 20 times what it cost to generate electricity from nuclear plants. Why? Because they can and you have NO recourse. They even have me thinking about setting up a few windmills at the plant to take advantage of this stupidity. As they say in business, "never let an opportunity to fleece the sheep pass you by". I am just waiting for the sheep to realize that their skin will be shaved off if they let the eco-Nazis have their way. The backlash should be fun. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Jun 14, 2007 17:51:24 GMT -5
I'd love to see Gore become president and act like the saviour many are portraying him to be, but I'm skeptical. His 2000 running mate, Joe Lieberman, recently called for a military strike on Iran. Gore comes across as intelligent and thoughtful, but he's a part of the same clique, unless a few years out of politics has really changed him that much. Colin Powell and George Tenet are both criticising the Bush administration now that they are no longer a part of it. In criticising the political process now that he has left it, is Gore any different than them? Put another way, why didn't he do anything about it when he had the power? |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 19, 2007 7:40:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 20, 2007 5:47:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 28, 2007 8:21:29 GMT -5
Ontario to distribute Gore's film to schools OTTAWA - Ontario will be distributing hundreds of donated copies of Al Gore's controversial documentary on climate change to public schools across the province.
But Kathleen Wynne, Ontario's Minister of Education, said the government's actions are not an endorsement of the film, An Inconvenient Truth.
"It's just a resource that will be available. The teachers can choose to use it or not," she said of the gift from the Tides Canada Foundation.
A spokeswoman for the ministry added: "We're not saying that Al Gore's got it right; what we're saying is climate change is an important thing to be talking about."
Some skeptics have charged that the movie is one-sided and is often presented in classrooms across Canada without a discussion of competing theories. One renowned geologist yesterday called it "political propaganda."
"The [school] boards should see to it that the schools are instructed to offset the Gore movie with alternative interpretations," said Albert Jacobs, the founder of Friends of Science, a Calgary-based group that promotes alternative theories to climate change.
Critical analysis should accompany the film, said Rick Johnson, president of the Ontario Public School Boards Association.
"We have to make sure that what we're teaching is factual and it is balanced . . . "
Vancouver-based businessman Michael Chernoff says his charitable foundation will provide to Canadian high schools DVD copies of the new British documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle, featuring interviews with scientists who dissent from Mr. Gore's claims.
"The students deserve the other side," said Mr. Chernoff, who has served as the director of oil, gas and renewable energy companies. the rest . . . __________ INCONVENIENT INACCURACIES? Some of Mr. Gore's allies have acknowledged glaring inaccuracies in the film. Though Mr. Gore was right for "getting the message out," University of Colorado climatologist Kevin Vranes told The New York Times he worried about the film "overselling our certainty about knowing the future." James E. Hansen, a NASA scientist and one of Mr. Gore's advisors, agreed the movie has "imperfections" and "technical flaws." Among other things, since the film's release last year, scientists have rejected Mr. Gore's claims that 2005 was the warmest year on record (temperatures have been receding since 1998) and that polar bears are heading for extinction (their numbers are growing). Link to The Deniers: The National Post's series on scientists who “buck the conventional wisdom on climate science”. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 28, 2007 8:26:10 GMT -5
Emissions Omissions Liberal environment critic has left a sizeable carbon footprint . . . David McGuinty, the Liberal environment critic, might be better to hold his tongue next time he gets an urge to quote David Suzuki and Al Gore - something he's been known to do in the House while lambasting the Tory government's plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Their high-profile preaching about the impending environmental cataclysm if consumers don't slash their carbon footprint - a "crisis that threatens the survival of our civilization" as Mr. Suzuki claims - has only invited critics to look closely at how thoroughly the prophets follow their own advice.
And so we get shocking details about Mr. Gore's Tennessee mansion burning 20 times more energy than typical homes, and the former U.S. vice-president's use of limos and private jets to keep up his busy speaking schedule.
Mr. Suzuki was this year caught running his cross-country climate-change tour from a diesel-powered "rock-star" bus, built for 54, for an eight-man entourage. And the CBC host has two sizeable homes, despite calling it "disgusting" that the average Canadian's home (most have just one) is larger than that of our grandparents.
Such is the conundrum of vociferous Kyoto backers such as Mr. McGuinty. Demanding that the government force the rest of us to adhere to austere emission limits can be risky business, unless you're prepared to lead by example.
Perhaps not surprisingly, a review of 900 pages of expenses acquired through Access to Information requests, reveals that the environment critic regularly ignored opportunities to minimize his carbon footprint while conducting business.
Calculations using the "terrapass" carbon calculator show that during the last three years of his eight-year tenure as president and CEO of the National Round-table on the Environment and the Economy, Mr. McGuinty was responsible, through work affairs alone, for more than double the carbon emissions than the average Canadian emits at home and work combined. (All records before 2000 were, according to the NRTEE, destroyed.)
"It's very easy to selectively cull" someone's environmental record, argues the Ottawa South MP in an interview.
It certainly is: The reports show Mr. McGuinty frequently jetted around the country for speeches, conferences and meetings. Expenses show 60 flights over three years. For a busy government executive, that may not be entirely avoidable (though teleconferences are significantly less carbon intensive). But Mr. McGuinty regularly travelled executive class, which, given the inefficient use of cabin space, means he emitted 150% the CO2 per trip he would have emitted flying in the back of the plane, based on statistics from Tufts University's Climate Change initiative.
On the ground, meanwhile, the president of the roundtable (a government-appointed policy advisory panel) was far from CO2 sainthood as well.
In Vancouver, attending the environmentally oriented Globe Conference in 2002, his rental vehicle was a Ford Expedition, a nine-seater SUV rated one of the worst on the market for greenhouse gas emissions.
In Calgary, days later, he rented a Dodge Caravan, another heavy emitter. That same year, Mr. McGuinty opted to hire a Cadillac to ferry him 200 kilmetres from Ottawa to Montreal to attend a morning meeting, though a roundtable memo indicates the cost of the train the night before, even with hotels and meals, was "equivalent to the cab ride to Montreal." Taking the Caddy, however, was arranged to "better accommodate David's agenda."
This is the same fellow who in Question Period, argues the Conservative government is out to "undermine Kyoto," is "recklessly allowing emissions to rise" and not taking "the future health of our planet seriously."
Just this month Mr. McGuinty, elected in 2004 after leaving the NRTEE, stood in the House to bemoan the Tories' cancellation of the One Tonne Challenge, which he praised for "getting through to each of us as citizens that we have a part to play ... [and] fostering a culture of awareness that we need to reduce greenhouse gases."
In light of his rhetorical record, Mr. McGuinty admits it's only "fair" to examine the personal carbon-consumption choices of Kyoto-backers, including himself. "Should I have potentially been more careful? Maybe I should have been."
Of course, judging at least by this limited snapshot, he has less to repent for than such celebrity moralizers as Mr. Suzuki or Mr. Gore (not to mention California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, hailed as a green hero on a recent Canadian visit for toughening state legislation, despite owning six Hummers and travelling exclusively by private jet).
And, to be fair, with their own demanding schedules, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Environment Minister John Baird and Opposition leader Stphane Dion are frequent flyers themselves. Plus, Mr. McGuinty insists that his work with NRTEE was critical to prioritizing federal environmental policy. "My team ... was responsible for most of the advanced thinking that's going on right now" in Ottawa, he says.
But a prominent Canadian environmentalist (who asked not to be named, because he works with federal politicians) says it's unrealistic to expect Canadians to suffer speechifying from Kyoto crusaders who make exceptions for themselves while promoting harsh restrictions for the rest of us. "It's arrogance. It's a sense of entitlement. A lot of people in the environmental movement, and in government, are so convinced that they're smarter than everybody else, a certain amount of behaviour just comes from that."
Convinced that the doomsday scenarios are real, he can't help but be disheartened by the refusal of so many environmental leaders to actually lead.
"When historians look back on this," he sighs, "they'll wonder what the hell the environmental movement was doing."link |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 30, 2007 0:09:31 GMT -5
Franko,
To your first post. Children should never be subjected to the political and social religions of the day of their teachers. Yet teachers under "social studies" see no problem to impregnate our children with THEIR views.
Ever trey to complain to the local school board? First of all, they want to know if you have children in their school system and if you don't, they tell you it's none of your business. So sully people like me resort to sending letter from my lawyer. It cost me $50 for his girl type up and amazingly, it get's a rapid and effective responses.
Who said you can't fight the system.......if you have money and lawyers.
To your second post....
In nature, the hyenas always chew on the sheep who willingly line up. "Do as I say" say the hyenas, "don't do as I do", as they pick the sheep fur off their teeth.
Mr. McGuinty insists that his work with NRTEE was critical to prioritizing federal environmental policy. "My team ... was responsible for most of the advanced thinking that's going on right now" in Ottawa, he says.
This is laughable, no, it's actually very pathetic. The village idiot number one priority is staying in power. If pedophiles had enough votes, he would embrace them.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 30, 2007 8:37:23 GMT -5
McGuinty (# 1 and # 2) are "my guys". They print "Thank you for your concern" letters by the bushel but continue on blithely. And they kept being voted in.
The reason I voted "Green" in the first place is that the candidate was the best of the bunch -- has been every time. Which tells you how good our candidates are here in Ottawa South.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 11, 2007 23:04:43 GMT -5
Hypocrisy takes the stage Lorne Gunter
Wednesday, July 11, 2007EDMONTON -The '80s band The Police brought their reunion tour to Commonwealth Stadium in early June. Two nights before their concert I had occasion to visit the venue, and when I pulled into the parking lot I thought I had stumbled onto a new-truck show. Really. There were 16 to 20 gleaming semis all lined up, as if for viewing-- with matching trailers. Only when I saw the name of the Chicago-based tour production company on the doors of the cabs did I twig to the convoy's real purpose: hauling all the lights, speakers, cables, sound panels, costumes and so forth from one city to the next. So when I saw the band's front man, Sir Gordon Sumner (a.k.a. "Sting"), promise the Live Earth concert crowd last weekend that he would "work to reduce" his carbon footprint, I laughed out loud. Just what would that mean? Limiting his promoters to using just 12 semis? It's a safe bet that The Police's 38-site, six-month tour will generate a bigger "carbon footprint" than I will in my entire lifetime. Ten lifetimes. Even if I disconnected the catalytic converter on my full-sized SUV and ripped off the muffler. Sumner's timid pledge, though, is typical of celebrity and activist hypocrisy on the enviro file. And I'm not even talking about all the environmental damage done over the weekend pulling off the eight-city Live Earth concert. I have some sympathy for the concert organizers who, when confronted with inconvenient truths -- such as the fact that performers flew more than 400,000 carbon-belching kilometres to the various venues for a single day of performances -- gave a sort of you-have-to-break-some-eggs-to-make-omelettes response. What I have real trouble with is preachy (and ill-informed) celebrities exhorting the rest of us to live like ecomonks in unlit, unheated sod hovels while they live the high life burning through more carbon-based fuels in a week than a platoon of army Humvees in a year. I don't mind that Sir Gordon probably hopped a private jet after his concert Friday night at Chicago's Wrigley Field, so he could be at New Jersey's Giants Stadium in time for Saturday's "Concert for a Climate in Crisis." What rankles more is that when it comes to driving ticket sales on his own tour -- when it comes to making Gordon Sumner money --he has no problem with hiring a fleet of big, diesel-powered, soot-spewing highway trucks to fill with such eco-necessities as 100,000-watt speakers. Frankly, I don't care if Sting designs a roadshow that requires 50 big rigs to transport. As regular readers of this column know, I set very little store in the theory that the tiny, tiny fraction of our atmosphere made up of man-made carbon dioxide is causing our planet to warm precipitously. Britain's highest circulation tabloid, The News of the World, pointed out Sunday that Madonna, one of the green movement's biggest celebrity advocates, is an "eco disaster." With her "Nine homes across the world, six cars and three private jet trips in a year," (not to mention "her 20 scheduled return flights and a 56-stop Confessions Tour"), the star has a carbon footprint nearly 60 times that of the average North American. I'm not the only one to think this. In fact, Live Earth proved a bust in the end. It may have set a new record for number of viewers of its Internet broadcast stream. But that accounts for only 10 million worldwide. Its television ratings were abysmal. In the U.S., it drew an audience smaller than the one that watches women's college softball or Stanley Cup hockey. Optimistically, perhaps 300 million watched at some point around the world. But that was a fraction of the two billion organizers had predicted. To limit energy use, Live Earth organizers implemented "green event guidelines," including only using electricity from renewable resources (as if it were possible to separate out renewable and non-renewable electricity as it comes off the power lines), using LED lights as part of production lighting (the operative term being "part of." Don't worry, no high-powered spots went without work during Live Earth). Staff and artist air travel was offset by buying carbon credits (which stops no emissions, but merely appeases the consciences of those doing the travelling), minimizing waste through recycling and reuse and using hybrid or high-efficiency cars for ground travel when possible. (Of course, it's not possible to use them for stars who insist on SUV limos to carry them to their save-the-planet gigs.) If you want to know what I'm doing for the environment, I've pledged myself not to live like a "green" celebrity. © National Post |
|
