|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 3, 2008 16:30:05 GMT -5
Canadians over-confident in country's supply of fresh water new poll by Unilever and RBC reveals
Canadian Partnership Initiative UN for Life Decade expert says findings "disconnected with reality;" economy and environment "impaired."TORONTO, ON March 19, 2008 — Canada may be on the brink of a fresh water crisis and unless Canadians start taking notice, our economy will suffer. That's the conclusion of a leading water expert following the release of a new poll commissioned by Unilever, RBC and the Canadian Partnership Initiative of the UN Water for Life Decade, which shows that a significant majority of Canadians (80%) are "confident" that Canada has enough fresh water to meet the country's long-term needs. Further, two-thirds disagree that Canada has a fresh water shortage problem at all. The research findings contrast sharply with increased warnings from Canadian NGOs and a report from Environment Canada that asserts Canada faces numerous threats to its valuable, fresh water resources. "Water scarcity has already constrained economic growth in parts of Western Canada and low lake levels have caused a reduction in shipping loads and reduced water availability for clean hydro-electric power on the Great Lakes, " says Bob Sandford, chair, Canadian Partnership Initiative of the UN Water for Life Decade, a co-sponsor of the Unilever RBC Poll on Water Perceptions. "With climate change, water quality and availability in parts of Canada will further deteriorate. Our economy will be seriously impaired by the effects of climate change."
In fact, the health of our economy is directly linked to the availability of fresh water. Environment Canada estimates that water contributes $7.5 to $23 billion annually to Canada's national economy."While respondents to the poll acknowledged their belief in the importance of water, they also have confidence in Canada's ability to meet its long-term needs, a finding that Sandford terms "a real disconnect with reality." He says, "We are seeing more and more incidences of water shortages, infrastructure problems, do-not-water advisories and drier summers. Canadians don't seem to appreciate that our long-term supply of fresh water is at risk." "Unilever Canada is very concerned about the challenges facing Canada's water supply," says John Coyne, vice president, legal and corporate affairs for Unilever Canada. "We are looking globally at ways to reduce our water footprint both in our operations, the supply chain and consumer use of our products." "RBC has taken a special interest in water, both because it is a threat to the health of people around the world, and because it also is a serious threat to economic development here in Canada," says Shari Austin, vice president, Corporate Citizenship, RBC. "As a financial institution, we're concerned about the implications of water shortages for Canada's prosperity and economic future." "We need to change our attitude toward water and implement conservation techniques in our everyday lives," says Sandford. "When it comes to water sustainability, everyone has an important role to play from NGOs to governments to corporate Canada to individual Canadians." Key findings from the survey include: Canadians on Long-Term Water Supply * Poll: The majority of Canadians believe in the importance of water in Canada. Yet, 80 per cent of Canadians are confident in the country's long-term supply of fresh water. * Reality: Although water is a renewable resource, it is not limitless. In fact, Canada possesses only 6.5 per cent of the world's renewable fresh water resources. More concerning is that Canadians are considered to be the second largest wasters of water, second to only the Americans.ii This shows a disconnect between Canadians' concern for our long-term fresh supply and our over-confidence in being able to meet demands at the rate we are going. * Poll: Almost all (97%) of Canadians agree that an abundant supply of fresh water is important to Canada's national economy. * Reality: Canadians are correct in thinking that the availability of clean, fresh water is absolutely critical to the long-term economic stability of this country, and yet Canadians are considered to be the second largest users of water in the world, second to only the U.S.ii For example, water scarcity has restricted economic growth and development in parts of the Western provinces and global warming has led to lower lake levels and caused a total reduction of shipping loads on the Great Lakes. Canadians on Climate Change * Poll: Only 10 per cent of Canadians identified global warming and climate change in a list of options as being a threat to Canada's supply of fresh water and 77 per cent of Canadians could not identify any adverse changes to their water supply. * Reality: Climate change will have significant negative environmental impacts on Canada's fresh water. As an example, only one per cent of the total water resources on Earth are available for human use. Almost 68.7 per cent of the world's fresh water is frozen in ice caps and glaciers. Rising temperatures have had a direct impact on the Earth's sea level and in turn, reduced the amount of available fresh water.iii * Poll: Twenty-eight per cent of Canadians identified mass removal of water to the United States in a list of options as the number one threat to Canada's supply of fresh water.
* Reality: This belief is incorrect. The greatest threat to Canada's supply of fresh water is our belief in its absolute abundance which is being challenged by heavy use, rapid growth and by climate change and global warming-induced drought. The fact that only 10 per cent of Canadians identified climate change and global warming and only one per cent identified overuse by agriculture shows that Canadians really don't know what threatens our supply of fresh water supply.Canadians on Water Use * Poll: About 70 per cent of Canadians agree that if a price is not placed on water people will waste it. Yet over 90 per cent of Canadians believe that access to water is a human right and should be free, not be bought and sold like any other commodity. * Reality: Water can be treated as both a human right and as an economic good. The average Canadian household pays $33.18 per month, and uses about 26,500 litres of water in the home. Canadians pay approximately one quarter of European water prices.iv As our population grows, we have to consider the higher pricing of water after our basic needs are met. www.rbc.com/newsroom/20080318water.html
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Apr 4, 2008 3:23:21 GMT -5
Southern California is a desert.
Arizona is parched.
The Colorado river would be called a stream in Canada.
There is a tree.
Give it a hug.
Canada does not have unlimited water, but it also does not have a water problem.
By all means, do not give the water away to the Americans, but don't complain about a fresh water shortage threatening the economy.
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 4, 2008 12:52:03 GMT -5
Canada does not have unlimited water, but it also does not have a water problem. Just because you say so? Pretending there's no problem is a great strategy. I'm sure the Royal Bank spent money on this study just for the heck of it. It's not like their business is directly tied to the economy.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 4, 2008 18:35:54 GMT -5
Canada does not have unlimited water, but it also does not have a water problem. Just because you say so? Pretending there's no problem is a great strategy. I'm sure the Royal Bank spent money on this study just for the heck of it. It's not like their business is directly tied to the economy. Whoever or whatever this group says so amounts to a hill of "climate change" malarkey. Tomorrow, I can form the "The Water Management Resource Council", ask the Bank Of Montreal to sponsor it by convincing their Public Relation Department that it is a worhtwhile cause, publish a poll that favours EXACTLY what I want to yap about. Lo and behold, CRISIS. And if wants to Google, look up what the history of the prairies. It has had HUGE swings in climate over the last several thousand years including 5,000 feet of ice over it as recently as the beginning of written human history. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Apr 4, 2008 23:06:01 GMT -5
Knowing for a fact that access to fresh water supply is a problem due to my father's work (you know.. since it's actually his field and conducts independent research) makes me impressed that people can find one question in the poll and chalk the whole thing up to "climate change malarkey." Climate change does happen in the prairies (as it does everywhere), but that's hardly the point. The water tables are still drying up and we can call Al Gore and whine to him and moan about spending on alternative fuels but the whole time we do that the water is still depleting. It doesn't matter why, it's happening.
Interesting how one can always find a conspiracy if they start out looking for it.
How we waste fresh water in this country is disgusting, no matter if you believe in global warming/climate change/leprechauns.
I have 59000 more characters to use here. I don't want to, but I will if I need to.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 5, 2008 1:42:44 GMT -5
RS,
You are talking about depleting local aquifers and diverting rivers for irrigation, which has nothing to do with global warming and leprechauns. We have been doing this in a large scale since the Romans built Rome. Somewhere in the past pages in here, I brought up what happened to the aquifer and river that runs through the town I was born in Greece. Within my lifetime, an entire river has practically disappear from hundreds of diversionary irrigation canals on top of a tripling of the local population sucking the hell out of the aquifer. I know THAT story inside and out because because my parents owned (now I own them) a lot of orchards and fields in that area.
Secondly.....
What is this "clean fresh water". What does that mean? Water from a well? Running brooks with birds singing in the trees? I don't remember when it was the last time that I drank water from a well. I live in the GTA and as far as I know, I am drinking seventh time recycled piss and good grief, by the time it get to Montreal, YIKES! Who knows how many kidneys it has passed through......LOL!
Lastly.....
I pass sings in Missisauga claiming that there is a water shortage. WHAT? They suck it up form Lake Ontario, clean it, pipe it into our homes and then send it back to Lake Ontario. How can there be a water shortage when it comes from and returned to the same place? Because people use it for their lawns? So what. If there were trees where houses stand, there would be less water flowing into the lake to begin with. In fact, because there is so much land paved over, I'm sure that the net effect of water evaporating through grass is less then the water running into the lake from city draining.
Claims of human misuse of water are pretty credible, claims of "human caused climate change depleting fresh water supplies" is just a religion laying claim to anything and everything that suits it's apocalyptic, apoplectic message.
Did you know that there is a pussy population explosion and it is caused by global warming? Ask me and I will give the link. LOL!
~~~~~~~~~
Err....57,802 letter to go.....BC, where are you? A letter counter is waiting for you to write a book! LOL!
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Apr 5, 2008 23:00:15 GMT -5
Just because you say so? Pretending there's no problem is a great strategy. I'm sure the Royal Bank spent money on this study just for the heck of it. It's not like their business is directly tied to the economy. Whoever or whatever this group says so amounts to a hill of "climate change" malarkey. Tomorrow, I can form the "The Water Management Resource Council", ask the Bank Of Montreal to sponsor it by convincing their Public Relation Department that it is a worhtwhile cause, publish a poll that favours EXACTLY what I want to yap about. Lo and behold, CRISIS. And if wants to Google, look up what the history of the prairies. It has had HUGE swings in climate over the last several thousand years including 5,000 feet of ice over it as recently as the beginning of written human history. A lot of farmers in California have been complaining about a shortage of illegal alien migrant workers that is driving up the cost of harvesting vegtables. Next al kaida will be complaining about a shortage of bombs to set off along the roadsides. I'm complaining that there is a shortage of young girls that find old men attractive, but complaining doesn't help much.  |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Apr 5, 2008 23:22:17 GMT -5
I can't reply without getting worked up. Not at you in particular, but at the general state of indifference this country has toward preservation of natural resources.
In cognizance of that, I'm just not going to reply.
Suffice to say that just because some people are attributing a problem to global warming (or whatever name it bears now) doesn't mean it should be ignored. Politics sucks, but politicizing stuff is how you get peoples' 30-second attention spans nowadays. If that's what it takes for issues to be considered, I'm all for ruffling a few feathers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Apr 6, 2008 23:19:49 GMT -5
I can't reply without getting worked up. Not at you in particular, but at the general state of indifference this country has toward preservation of natural resources. In cognizance of that, I'm just not going to reply. Suffice to say that just because some people are attributing a problem to global warming (or whatever name it bears now) doesn't mean it should be ignored. Politics sucks, but politicizing stuff is how you get peoples' 30-second attention spans nowadays. If that's what it takes for issues to be considered, I'm all for ruffling a few feathers. Sorry Red. I get carried away. Nothing personal. Global warming is a problem and so is a water shortage. Too many immigrants on welfare is a problem too as is protecting the french language and pure laine flying frenchmen on the Hab's instead of Russians and Finns. I don't treat any of those problems very seriously. I'm more concerned with my kids getting into good colleges, security against terrorists and the price of Suncor and PetroCan shares. There are lots of people who want to protect the short nosed shrew and the Siberian tiger. Siberian tigers are important, but my kids rank higher with me. In California the language of signs in an Irish pub on Crescent street don't get a line in the LA Times. It may appear that I get upset and obsess over little things, but I assure you that my family, house and safety are most important. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 6, 2008 23:29:48 GMT -5
The report is junk science with a PR spin. No evidence to support a supposed lack of fresh water resources (I say supposed - if anyone has anything to add that might indicate a forth coming water shortage (RedScull I'm looking at you) then I'd be glad to hear it) just a bunch of statistics about a supposedly lackadaisical attitude which will at some point in time hurt our children and won't somebody please god, think of the children. And climate change. That's scary too.
I can, in one swift quote, deal a serious blow to the credibility of this report:
Because, of course, all the water will go into the ocean, and not, you know, enter the water cycle like every other drop of water on the planet. It will just go and sit in the ocean. As salt water. Because water's like that.
The reality is that all the water in the ocean evaporates, becomes clouds, falls somewhere on earth, becomes a pond, stream, river and so on until it rejoins the ocean and begins the cycle again. The reality is global warming will likely increase the amount of fresh water available globally (freeing some of that 68.7 percent) and rainfall amounts (because warm air can carry more moisture than cold air). I should stress that this is not specifically what will happen in Canada (I'm not a climatologist, so I've no expertise to predict how global warming will affect Canada's weather, just basic science knowledge) but it hurts the credibility of this report that they say, specifically, that rising temperature = higher sea levels = less fresh water without explaining how 68.7 of the world's fresh water suddenly becomes salt water without affecting available fresh water.
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 7, 2008 1:43:06 GMT -5
Yeah TNG, I wondered about that bit too. But as noted, there have been water problems for some time. It's not exactly a secret.
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 7, 2008 8:38:31 GMT -5
Yeah TNG, I wondered about that bit too. But as noted, there have been water problems for some time. It's not exactly a secret. Has there been? Or has it been more mundane problems - too much building in traditionally dry areas (such as the prairies) or lack of infrastructure to hold a rapidly growing population (in the golden horseshoe). There are lots of possible causes for water shortages besides the sky falling. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 8, 2008 7:47:47 GMT -5
* Poll: Almost all (97%) of Canadians agree that an abundant supply of fresh water is important to Canada's national economy. * Reality: Canadians are correct in thinking that the availability of clean, fresh water is absolutely critical to the long-term economic stability of this country, and yet Canadians are considered to be the second largest users of water in the world, second to only the U.S.ii For example, water scarcity has restricted economic growth and development in parts of the Western provinces and global warming has led to lower lake levels and caused a total reduction of shipping loads on the Great Lakes. * Poll: Twenty-eight per cent of Canadians identified mass removal of water to the United States in a list of options as the number one threat to Canada's supply of fresh water.
* Reality: This belief is incorrect. The greatest threat to Canada's supply of fresh water is our belief in its absolute abundance which is being challenged by heavy use, rapid growth and by climate change and global warming-induced drought. The fact that only 10 per cent of Canadians identified climate change and global warming and only one per cent identified overuse by agriculture shows that Canadians really don't know what threatens our supply of fresh water supply.These two are inter-linked and can not be discussed without discussing the other. I don't know the exact wording of NAFTA, but if we export any freshwater to the United States then that opens ALL our natural resources to the Americans to exploit. There was a company who was going to export freshwater from Newfoundland to the United States. They were stopped because of fears with NAFTA. The lake was Gisbourne Lake - I should try to find an article on it. I just recently applied on a job as "Water Resource Engineer" for this province. Wish me luck. But, yes there is a big water problem in this country. Not sure that I'd relate it to climate change or global warming. Although the theory could be "that flash floods cause erosion and thereby chemicals are seeping into the water table more quickly than before". I know I am on a well at my house. I won't drink it ... way to much manganese in the water. But another problem with exporting our water is that American water quality guidelines are different than Canadian water quality (for drinking) guidelines. Newfoundland is chock full of fresh water. I'd say per-capita maybe (speculation) the most in the country, and we still have communities that can not drink their water supplies. The summers (and sometimes winters) are full of boil orders ... ... something needs to be done. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 8, 2008 7:53:10 GMT -5
INDEPTH: WATER
Selling Canada's water
CBC News Online | August 25, 2004
Canada lucked out in the global water sweeps. We are near the top of water-rich nations, trailing only Brazil, Russia and China.
Thanks to the replenishing cycle of rain and evaporation, the amount of water on Earth has remained the same over the past four billion years. Only in this generation has there been concern that we may be ruining our water supply. Of all the water on our planet, 97.5 per cent is sea water and three-quarters of the remaining 2.5 per cent is locked in polar ice caps. The tiny bit left over is drinkable.
Estimates of Canada's supply of fresh water vary from 5.6 per cent to nine per cent to 20 per cent of the world's supply, depending on how one defines "fresh water" – whether it means "available," "usable," or merely "existing." One study says Canada has 20 per cent of the world's fresh water – ranking it at the top – but only nine per cent of "renewable" fresh water.
Whatever the case, Canadians consume 350 litres of water a day per capita, second only to the Americans as the most profligate wasters of water in the world. The average global citizen needs only between 20 and 40 litres of water a day for drinking and sanitation.
It has been said that water will be "the oil of the 21st century," or "liquid gold," and that it will cause wars between nations. Whatever happens with regard to global water, and the environmental, economic and political fallout, Canada will be a major player. Talks have intensified during the past few years on whether Canada should take advantage of its bountiful supply of water by selling it for profit – like gas, oil and timber.
The House of Commons intends to hold televised hearings starting in September 2001 on "freshwater security" to examine the pros and cons of selling Canada's water to other countries. Canada sells bottled water to other countries, but shipments of bulk water are not allowed.
There is also the issue of whether, under the terms of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), water is a "vital resource" like the air we breathe, or a "commodity" to be sold and traded.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water as a commodity
Gerry White is an entrepreneur who wants to sell Canada's water to the world and sees no reason why he should be prevented from doing so.
Specifically, he wants to sell water from Gisborne Lake in Newfoundland. The lake is 16 kilometres long and 10 kilometres wide, near the south coast of Newfoundland. White flew over Lake Gisborne one summer day in 1996 and nearly didn't notice it because the water is so clear.
White quickly developed a plan to skim 500,000 cubic metres from Gisborne Lake each week and ship it in bulk to overseas customers. He argued that draining 500,000 cubic metres of water would lower the lake an inch, but this would be replenished naturally within 10 hours.
He also argued it would be a godsend to jobs-poor Newfoundland, especially the small community of Grand Le Pierre, 30 kilometres down the hill on the Atlantic shore. Grand Le Pierre used to be a thriving cod-fishing town, then the cod disappeared and now the unemployment rate is more than 40 per cent.
White convinced the town's mayor, Edward Fizzard, to back the plan. Fizzard imagined a water pipeline from Gisborne Lake, a bottling plant in Grand Le Pierre, work for locals loading tankers to take the water to distant ports.
When environmentalists got wind of this, White's grand plan was scrapped. The environmentalists successfully argued that allowing Gisborne Lake water to be sold in bulk would make Canadian water a "commodity" and thus subject to the terms and conditions of GATT and NAFTA.
The same thing happened two years earlier when the province of Ontario issued a permit to a private company to collect Great Lakes water and ship it in bulk to Asia. The permit was issued to Nova Group, a company in Sault Ste. Marie, allowing it to ship up to 600 million litres of Lake Superior water to Asia by 2002. There was such a public outcry – on both sides of the border – that the permit was withdrawn.
Early in 2001, Roger Grimes, the new premier of Newfoundland, revived the plan to sell water from Gisborne Lake. He has called for a review of Gerry White's Gisborne Lake plan and thinks there is a good chance Newfoundland may go it alone and damn the federal torpedoes. Mayor Fizzard of Grand Le Pierre couldn't be happier. "The water is just running into the Atlantic Ocean, no one is getting one nickel out of it," he told a visiting Toronto Star reporter in May 2001. "Why shouldn't it help us? It just seems like other parts of Canada want to keep Newfoundland down."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Belongs to everyone and to no one"
Maude Barlow is chair of the Council of Canadians, a citizens’ group with 100,000 members. She is the Joan of Arc of those opposed to the sale of Canadian water.
"There is a common assumption that the world's water supply is huge and infinite," Barlow has said. "This assumption is false. At some time in the near future, water bankruptcy will result."
She cites a United Nations study that says by the year 2025 – less than 25 years – two-thirds of the world will be "water-poor."
"The wars of the future are going to be fought over water," Barlow has declared.
She endorses a 1999 paper from the Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA) that says: "Water is an essential need, a public trust, not a commodity. It belongs to everyone and to no one." The CELA paper continues:
"Even large-scale water exports cannot possibly satisfy the social and economic needs of distant societies. Water shipped halfway around the world will only be affordable to the privileged and will deepen inequities between rich and poor. International trade in bulk water will allow elites to assure the quality of their own drinking water supplies, while permitting them to ignore the pollution of their local waters and the waste of their water management systems."
Commenting specifically on the Great Lakes Basin, CELA says:
"Changing water levels and flows will have unpredictable and harmful consequences to basin habitat, biodiversity, shorelines, jobs and culture, particularly to First Nations. Lower water levels will mean greater disturbance of highly contaminated sediments in shallow harbours and connecting channels and less dilution of polluted waters."
Barlow maintains that if Newfoundland is allowed to export bulk water, it becomes, ipso facto, a "good" under NAFTA, which would allow any other company in Canada to do the same. "The prime minister can't blame it on the provinces or the Constitution," Barlow says. "The federal government has jurisdiction over trade and could ban (water) exports tomorrow. Sadly, Jean Chrétien doesn't seem prepared to do that."
|
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Apr 8, 2008 12:52:01 GMT -5
The report is junk science with a PR spin. No evidence to support a supposed lack of fresh water resources (I say supposed - if anyone has anything to add that might indicate a forth coming water shortage (RedScull I'm looking at you) then I'd be glad to hear it) just a bunch of statistics about a supposedly lackadaisical attitude which will at some point in time hurt our children and won't somebody please god, think of the children. And climate change. That's scary too. I can, in one swift quote, deal a serious blow to the credibility of this report: Because, of course, all the water will go into the ocean, and not, you know, enter the water cycle like every other drop of water on the planet. It will just go and sit in the ocean. As salt water. Because water's like that. The reality is that all the water in the ocean evaporates, becomes clouds, falls somewhere on earth, becomes a pond, stream, river and so on until it rejoins the ocean and begins the cycle again. The reality is global warming will likely increase the amount of fresh water available globally (freeing some of that 68.7 percent) and rainfall amounts (because warm air can carry more moisture than cold air). I should stress that this is not specifically what will happen in Canada (I'm not a climatologist, so I've no expertise to predict how global warming will affect Canada's weather, just basic science knowledge) but it hurts the credibility of this report that they say, specifically, that rising temperature = higher sea levels = less fresh water without explaining how 68.7 of the world's fresh water suddenly becomes salt water without affecting available fresh water. I asked my Dad to get me some materials. We'll see if he does or not, he tends to be a bit absent-minded. When the Ocean levels rise, they reclaim current fresh water deposits as saltwater deposits. For instance, if the Oceans rose then much of the Nile and Amazon deltas would become salt water. The St. Laurent canal would be increasingly salty, etc. That is a large part of what I assume they mean in regard to depleting fresh water. Supposedly a large portion of what's considered the fresh water supply in the world sits very near salt water. I believe you're correct in regard to more rainfall, but I don't think you've taken into consideration is that there's still nowhere for this water to go. Eventually the water might carve out greater riverbeds or lakes, but for the immediate future the additional rainwater would just be seasonal floodwater, which seems to me to be fairly useless if we're looking for drinking water. The main effect would be an increase in the rate of flow through the lakes and down the water flows which has its own effects (such as disturbing sedimentary substances). So if we can siphon water off in the areas where the sedimentary disturbance hasn't contaminated it, I guess that could work but I, like you, aren't a climatologist and don't know where this would happen. So Hooray for Hydro power I guess, but not really for additional drinking water I wouldn't think. It's not that I don't think we have enough water to sustain our population, it's that it isn't in the right areas to sustain certain other parts of the country. If we don't want to actually start selling off water (which seems like a bad thing to do in the current circumstance), we need to sustain areas like the prairies so we can use/sell the wheat. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 8, 2008 15:36:59 GMT -5
It's not that I don't think we have enough water to sustain our population, it's that it isn't in the right areas to sustain certain other parts of the country. If we don't want to actually start selling off water (which seems like a bad thing to do in the current circumstance), we need to sustain areas like the prairies so we can use/sell the wheat. Not to change the thread topic ... but wasn't there a plan a few years back to use James Bay as an irrigation system for the Prairies? |
|
|
|
Post by habmeister on Apr 8, 2008 18:33:50 GMT -5
the earth isn't heating up, the salmon aren't being overfished, the whales and sharks aren't being driven to extinction, there aren't too many people on the planet, we're doing a great job across the board and taking care of our home. who cares if we're extincting species, i'm sure a meteor will crash into the earth with new dna and everything will be just fine. the price of rice is increasing you say?! what from 5 cents a cup to 7 cents? the sky is falling! besides what do we care, it's not like any of us will be around then. i'll just do my part, i long gave up on expecting others to think about more than themselves and their next shopping trip for goods produced by child labourers. go habs go! |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 8, 2008 20:55:45 GMT -5
the earth isn't heating up, the salmon aren't being overfished, the whales and sharks aren't being driven to extinction, there aren't too many people on the planet, we're doing a great job across the board and taking care of our home. who cares if we're extincting species, i'm sure a meteor will crash into the earth with new dna and everything will be just fine. the price of rice is increasing you say?! what from 5 cents a cup to 7 cents? the sky is falling! besides what do we care, it's not like any of us will be around then. i'll just do my part, i long gave up on expecting others to think about more than themselves and their next shopping trip for goods produced by child labourers. go habs go! And yet you'll contribute more to the problem with a cross country trip (whether it be by car or plane, would matter not) to see a hockey game ala Al Gore. Save the environment and stay home and watch it on TV. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 8, 2008 21:18:24 GMT -5
More radical ways to save the environment [excerpts]: Paul Watson, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society chief. In reaction to the March 29 maritime deaths of four seal hunters, Watson declared the deaths of seals a "greater tragedy."
Watson's advocacy of a population-decimating cap of one billion people, or calling human beings "the AIDS of the Earth?"
Watson is the symbol of a movement that originated in a desire to improve the planet's physical condition, but transmogrified into the zero-sum dogma of eco-spirituality, in which the object of worship is the environment, and the messianic goal its return to a pre-civilization Edenic state. In this scenario, Earth is perennial victim, mankind eternal villain, the consumption of natural resources original sin. No emotionally manipulative appeal is beyond the pale for this pagan religion's demagogues, even the
shameful appropriation of racist tropes. Alpha eco-spiritualist novelist Alice Walker claims, "the Earth is the black of the world."
The case of Englishwoman Toni Vernelli illustrates the disturbingly irrational nature of this death-friendly replacement of Christianity. In 2000, at age 27, Vernelli had herself sterilized so as to "reduce her carbon footprint" and "protect the planet."
It is always wrong to have children, [David] Benatar claims, urging a "pro-death" view of abortion.the who op-ed article |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 8, 2008 21:20:45 GMT -5
Oh don't get me started on Paul Watson and / or WWF and their ilk...... you'll need a whole new thread and 6 servers for my rant!!
|
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Apr 8, 2008 22:11:22 GMT -5
the earth isn't heating up, the salmon aren't being overfished, the whales and sharks aren't being driven to extinction, there aren't too many people on the planet, we're doing a great job across the board and taking care of our home. who cares if we're extincting species, i'm sure a meteor will crash into the earth with new dna and everything will be just fine. the price of rice is increasing you say?! what from 5 cents a cup to 7 cents? the sky is falling! besides what do we care, it's not like any of us will be around then. i'll just do my part, i long gave up on expecting others to think about more than themselves and their next shopping trip for goods produced by child labourers. go habs go! And yet you'll contribute more to the problem with a cross country trip (whether it be by car or plane, would matter not) to see a hockey game ala Al Gore. Save the environment and stay home and watch it on TV. I hope that wasn't a pot shot at me! I'm taking the train, if that's any better |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 8, 2008 22:11:26 GMT -5
More radical ways to save the environment [excerpts]: Paul Watson, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society chief. In reaction to the March 29 maritime deaths of four seal hunters, Watson declared the deaths of seals a "greater tragedy."
...............
Watson is one extreme, the other extreme is the left whose wet dream is to use "carbon credits" as a means to tax the developed world population to the benefit of the underdeveloped nation. There thinking goes...... every human is allocated 2 tons of carbon per year. Any excess should be taxed and that money distributed by the UN to underdeveloped countries. So let's see, Canadians consume about 14 tons of CO2 a year and at $40 a ton, we need to bend over for about $500 to the UN. Too left wing? Then how about "carbon trading"? Why are all the third world "climate scientist" so in love with "human cause climate change"? What better way to bend over the Canadian population then a bunch of rich traders and companies legally stealing our money, with the governments approval, so they can "buy carbon" from their buddies in other countries. The absurity of buying "credits", basically buying NOTHING with OUR money is just mind boggling....but not to the enviro zealots. But of course, the Banks think it's a fantastic idea. Wall Street thinks it's a fantastic idea. Politicians wanting to appear "enviro" conscious think it's a good idea. Al Gore The Planet Saver already has a carbon trading company. And who is pay for all of this BS? YOU and ME. I have a band aid on the middle finger......but I can still raise it...... |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 8, 2008 22:24:37 GMT -5
... something needs to be done. Distribution of drinkable water has been a problem from the beginning of human civilization. It's even more apparent now since we have the means to test water more thoroughly. 50 years ago, maybe in 30 years ago, you would of used that well and thought nothing of it. We have plenty of water, we need to figure our how to distributed. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 8, 2008 22:43:18 GMT -5
When the Ocean levels rise, they reclaim current fresh water deposits as saltwater deposits. For instance, if the Oceans rose then much of the Nile and Amazon deltas would become salt water. The St. Laurent canal would be increasingly salty, etc. That is a large part of what I assume they mean in regard to depleting fresh water. Supposedly a large portion of what's considered the fresh water supply in the world sits very near salt water. I believe you're correct in regard to more rainfall, but I don't think you've taken into consideration is that there's still nowhere for this water to go. Eventually the water might carve out greater riverbeds or lakes, but for the immediate future the additional rainwater would just be seasonal floodwater, which seems to me to be fairly useless if we're looking for drinking water. The main effect would be an increase in the rate of flow through the lakes and down the water flows which has its own effects (such as disturbing sedimentary substances). So if we can siphon water off in the areas where the sedimentary disturbance hasn't contaminated it, I guess that could work but I, like you, aren't a climatologist and don't know where this would happen. So Hooray for Hydro power I guess, but not really for additional drinking water I wouldn't think. It's not that I don't think we have enough water to sustain our population, it's that it isn't in the right areas to sustain certain other parts of the country. If we don't want to actually start selling off water (which seems like a bad thing to do in the current circumstance), we need to sustain areas like the prairies so we can use/sell the wheat. All the water does not just run off. Aquafiers get replensihed too and their water retention latency is very high. The prairies are a very volatile climate region of Canada. Depending on the wind patterns, the Rockies can strip the moisture out of the air and creating "desert" condition in the West. It has nothing to do with the "sky fallers" claim of climate change since this is happening to the praries for thousands of years. I read a great paper about it a short time ago but now I can't find the link. If you Google drought, prairies, history, you will find some university level papers on the subject. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 9, 2008 5:58:25 GMT -5
And yet you'll contribute more to the problem with a cross country trip (whether it be by car or plane, would matter not) to see a hockey game ala Al Gore. Save the environment and stay home and watch it on TV. I hope that wasn't a pot shot at me! I'm taking the train, if that's any better It really wasn't a pot-shot at anyone in particular, not even H&C ... just a general statement about mankind. People will complain that the other side of the coin is doing this or that and not really look at their own lives. People will stand up on a soap-box and say "do this" or "do that" to save whatever cause ... but then you look at what they themselves are doing and it is no better than anyone else. (Aside: such as eco-maniac Paul Watson. Protest the seals and use illegal propaganda to get funding to serve his environmental cause. Pollute the seas/skies doing it and not evwen bat an eyelash at other brutal animal practices like fox-hunting (*cough* McCartney/Mills *cough*), fois-gras, heck any slaughter of an animal) Everyone does something to "save the environment". Whether it be recycling, riding their bike to work, or turning the heat/lights off when not in a room.... but no one goes the full 10 yrds. People may think they are doing their part, but when it comes right down to it, if they want to do something they will - carbon footprint be damned. So if I or anyone else wants to hop on a plane and pollute the friendly skies, or buy a Hummer or some other souped up vehicle, how can I belittle their lifestyle when a) it isn't illegal, and b) I am sure there is more than enough examples in my own life that aren't "environmentally friendly". |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 9, 2008 7:59:56 GMT -5
Speaks to me of this whole protest of the Olympic Games, Skilly: easy enough to protest by disrupting a torch run; want to make a real difference? Don't buy anything made in China -- computers, car parts, clothing . . . check the "Made in . . . " label, don't buy it, write the company and say that/why you aren't. But when it comes down to it, complaining and token protests are easier than doing something that will affect your wallet.
|
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Apr 9, 2008 8:10:57 GMT -5
When the Ocean levels rise, they reclaim current fresh water deposits as saltwater deposits. For instance, if the Oceans rose then much of the Nile and Amazon deltas would become salt water. The St. Laurent canal would be increasingly salty, etc. That is a large part of what I assume they mean in regard to depleting fresh water. Supposedly a large portion of what's considered the fresh water supply in the world sits very near salt water. I believe you're correct in regard to more rainfall, but I don't think you've taken into consideration is that there's still nowhere for this water to go. Eventually the water might carve out greater riverbeds or lakes, but for the immediate future the additional rainwater would just be seasonal floodwater, which seems to me to be fairly useless if we're looking for drinking water. The main effect would be an increase in the rate of flow through the lakes and down the water flows which has its own effects (such as disturbing sedimentary substances). So if we can siphon water off in the areas where the sedimentary disturbance hasn't contaminated it, I guess that could work but I, like you, aren't a climatologist and don't know where this would happen. So Hooray for Hydro power I guess, but not really for additional drinking water I wouldn't think. It's not that I don't think we have enough water to sustain our population, it's that it isn't in the right areas to sustain certain other parts of the country. If we don't want to actually start selling off water (which seems like a bad thing to do in the current circumstance), we need to sustain areas like the prairies so we can use/sell the wheat. All the water does not just run off. Aquafiers get replensihed too and their water retention latency is very high. The prairies are a very volatile climate region of Canada. Depending on the wind patterns, the Rockies can strip the moisture out of the air and creating "desert" condition in the West. It has nothing to do with the "sky fallers" claim of climate change since this is happening to the praries for thousands of years. I read a great paper about it a short time ago but now I can't find the link. If you Google drought, prairies, history, you will find some university level papers on the subject. That might be the case. I'm just running the process through my head. I'll definitely try to check those papers out. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Apr 9, 2008 11:15:31 GMT -5
I hope that wasn't a pot shot at me! I'm taking the train, if that's any better It really wasn't a pot-shot at anyone in particular, not even H&C ... just a general statement about mankind. People will complain that the other side of the coin is doing this or that and not really look at their own lives. People will stand up on a soap-box and say "do this" or "do that" to save whatever cause ... but then you look at what they themselves are doing and it is no better than anyone else. (Aside: such as eco-maniac Paul Watson. Protest the seals and use illegal propaganda to get funding to serve his environmental cause. Pollute the seas/skies doing it and not evwen bat an eyelash at other brutal animal practices like fox-hunting (*cough* McCartney/Mills *cough*), fois-gras, heck any slaughter of an animal) Everyone does something to "save the environment". Whether it be recycling, riding their bike to work, or turning the heat/lights off when not in a room.... but no one goes the full 10 yrds. People may think they are doing their part, but when it comes right down to it, if they want to do something they will - carbon footprint be damned. So if I or anyone else wants to hop on a plane and pollute the friendly skies, or buy a Hummer or some other souped up vehicle, how can I belittle their lifestyle when a) it isn't illegal, and b) I am sure there is more than enough examples in my own life that aren't "environmentally friendly". I guess if Canada can claim a water shortage, Gillette can claim an income shortage? |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 9, 2008 14:16:14 GMT -5
When the Ocean levels rise, they reclaim current fresh water deposits as saltwater deposits. For instance, if the Oceans rose then much of the Nile and Amazon deltas would become salt water. The St. Laurent canal would be increasingly salty, etc. That is a large part of what I assume they mean in regard to depleting fresh water. Supposedly a large portion of what's considered the fresh water supply in the world sits very near salt water. I'd like to see numbers, but for the time being I'll take your word for it. Here's a thought though - why do you suppose that is? And what will happen if/when the seas rise? Besides the tree huggers belting out a big "I told you so"? The geography changes. Weather patterns change. And new waterways will be formed, replacing the old ones. Roughly speaking, the ration of fresh to salt water will probably stay the same (if anything, it would shift towards fresh water anyways, as evaporation - which in general only affects oceans - will increase, taking more water away from the oceans and dumping it over land). But there will be more water, so more fresh water. I believe you're correct in regard to more rainfall, but I don't think you've taken into consideration is that there's still nowhere for this water to go. Eventually the water might carve out greater riverbeds or lakes, but for the immediate future the additional rainwater would just be seasonal floodwater, which seems to me to be fairly useless if we're looking for drinking water. You're imagining an instantaneous transformation. I'm imagining one over time. The main effect would be an increase in the rate of flow through the lakes and down the water flows which has its own effects (such as disturbing sedimentary substances). So if we can siphon water off in the areas where the sedimentary disturbance hasn't contaminated it, I guess that could work but I, like you, aren't a climatologist and don't know where this would happen. So Hooray for Hydro power I guess, but not really for additional drinking water I wouldn't think. Again, you're imagining an instant transformation. It's more like to happen (if at all) slowly, over time. So while you will get an increased rate of flow, it will be gradual - not dumping all of the sediment in a lake into the river all at once. It's not that I don't think we have enough water to sustain our population, it's that it isn't in the right areas to sustain certain other parts of the country. If we don't want to actually start selling off water (which seems like a bad thing to do in the current circumstance), we need to sustain areas like the prairies so we can use/sell the wheat. Believe it or not, this I agree with. Humanity has never been all that bright when choosing where it wants to live - Pompeii, San Francisco, Florida - but, quite frankly, when it comes down to it it's a matter of transportation, not creation. A far easier proposition, quite frankly. We can build pipelines across the north to haul oil to more accessible destinations. If it comes down to it (if water becomes liquid gold) then we can do the same with water. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 9, 2008 14:54:44 GMT -5
I just recently applied on a job as "Water Resource Engineer" for this province. Wish me luck. But, yes there is a big water problem in this country. Not sure that I'd relate it to climate change or global warming. Although the theory could be "that flash floods cause erosion and thereby chemicals are seeping into the water table more quickly than before". I know I am on a well at my house. I won't drink it ... way to much manganese in the water. But another problem with exporting our water is that American water quality guidelines are different than Canadian water quality (for drinking) guidelines. Newfoundland is chock full of fresh water. I'd say per-capita maybe (speculation) the most in the country, and we still have communities that can not drink their water supplies. The summers (and sometimes winters) are full of boil orders ... ... something needs to be done. I will admit I have been out of province for four years, so my information, besides being anecdotal may also be out of date. But if I recall correctly most, if not all of the boil orders in place in the province were the result of one or two reasons - either there had been a flood recently which may have contaminated the water supply, or there had been a problem with 'beaver fever'. Beaver fever, of course, is caused by certain bacteria found in mammalian fecal matter (poop) and while the beaver often gets the bum rap for it, it's usually caused by human fecal matter. Now ask yourself, how does this happen. The answer is simple. The small communities affected by 'beaver fever' are old communities with very poor and degraded infrastructure. Sewage leaks into the water supply and presto - you've got yourself a problem. Not because of lack of water supply. Because of lack of infrastructure (and while I'm ranting, because Joey sold us all down the river). |
|
