|
|
Post by clear observer on May 29, 2008 10:57:47 GMT -5
 House #1 A 20 room mansion ( not including 8 bathrooms ) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool ( and a pool house) and a separate guest house, all heated by gas. In one month this residence consumes more energy than the average American household does in a year. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2400. In natural gas alone, this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not situated in a Northern or Midwestern 'snow belt' area. It's in the South.  House #2 Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university. This house incorporates every 'green' feature current home construction can provide. The house is 4,000 square feet ( 4 bedrooms ) and is nestled on a high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat-pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas and it consumes one-quarter electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is coll ected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Surrounding flowers and shrubs native to the area enable the property to blend into the surrounding rural landscape. ~~~~~ HOUSE #1 is outside of Nashville , Tennessee ; it is the abode of the 'environmentalist ' Al Gore. HOUSE #2 is on a ranch near Crawford , Texas; it is the residence the of the President of the United States , George W. Bush. You can verify it at: www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on May 29, 2008 11:26:26 GMT -5
I'm as against the worldwide panic about global warming as the next enviro-facist (or whatever its fashionable to call my kind these days) but I don't think proving that Al Gore is a self-serving liar whose interests really only include himself does anything to dispute the facts of so-called global warming. You're pointing our a career politician is only interested in keeping himself in the public eye and making himself relevant in the wake of his (questionable to some) defeat in an election held almost eight years ago. That's like pointing out people like to breathe air. It's a given.
Sadly most people (on both sides of the coin, to be honest - although because of the way the media tilts these days it tends to be much more apparent from those from the 'lets all panic' camp) who speak the loudest on these issues are the ones who stand to gain the most from it. I hear more intelligent debate on this forum (again, from both sides of the coin) than I do on any of the major television networks.
But yeah Al Gore is a bit of a hypocrite. He 'excuses' himself by explaining that he uses his home as his office (while the Bush Ranch is probably only a vacation home for George Jr. these days (until next January)) but still. Then again, all he has to do is purchase some carbon credits from himself and whammo, he's in the clear again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 29, 2008 11:41:09 GMT -5
Since reading this I've been able to find references to it on the internet, CO. Here's another one: www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367One of the guys here in the office thought "An Inconvenient Truth" was a good show, but Gore lost credibility when he pulls up in his limo. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 29, 2008 19:14:38 GMT -5
I read an interesting fact in MacLean's magazine the other day. The farm industry contributes more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere than all transportation and industry combined. Yes, combined. And get this ... it is the animal's flatulence that contributes the most. In New Zealand they actually considered a "fart tax" to curb the greenhouse gas emissions. So maybe we should be eating more meat ....
Published on Friday, June 20, 2003 by Reuters
New Zealand 'Fart Tax' Causes a Stink
WELLINGTON - New Zealand farmers are being asked to cough up NZ$8.4 million (2.9 million pounds) a year to help reduce greenhouse effects caused by flatulence of their millions of sheep and cattle -- and they say the plan stinks.
A 'fart tax' is to be imposed on New Zealand's livestock, such as these cattle near Queenstown, to help combat global warming.
Last year New Zealand signed up to the Kyoto Protocol (news - web sites) on global warming (news - web sites) and agreed to reduce production of greenhouse gases which are suspected of being a major cause of climate change.
Now the government plans to introduce a tax to help pay for research into livestock emissions of methane and nitrous oxide, which account for more than half of the country's greenhouse gases.
But farmers argue that reducing greenhouse gas emissions benefits everyone so the costs should be spread across all taxpayers.
"This decision is yet another example of the government's desire to act in the wider public interest but expecting rural New Zealand to pay for its largesse," Federated Farmers President Tom Lambie said.
Most of the livestock emissions come from the methane-rich burps of cows and sheep.
On current livestock numbers of around 46 million sheep and nine million cows, the levy will cost farmers around nine cents a sheep a year, and around 72 cents per cow.
Deer and goats will also be taxed, but pigs and poultry -- paltry contributors to greenhouse emissions by comparison -- are exempted.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 29, 2008 19:35:09 GMT -5
Anytime McGinty and Dion want to capture my flatulence, I would happy to supply it to them.
|
|
|
|
Post by jkr on May 31, 2008 11:34:36 GMT -5
I read an interesting fact in MacLean's magazine the other day. The farm industry contributes more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere than all transportation and industry combined. Yes, combined. And get this ... it is the animal's flatulence that contributes the most. In New Zealand they actually considered a "fart tax" to curb the greenhouse gas emissions. So maybe we should be eating more meat .... Do you mean eating LESS meat? If this is true than if there is less animal production there should be less greenhouse gases. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 31, 2008 12:46:20 GMT -5
A brilliant article.....and mirrors everything I keep repeating about this psudo moralism couched in derived "science". ~~~~~~~~~ www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/29/AR2008052903266.html?sub=AR~~~~~~~~~ Carbon Chastity The First Commandment of the Church of the Environment I'm not a global warming believer. I'm not a global warming denier. I'm a global warming agnostic who believes instinctively that it can't be very good to pump lots of CO2into the atmosphere but is equally convinced that those who presume to know exactly where that leads are talking through their hats. Predictions of catastrophe depend on models. Models depend on assumptions about complex planetary systems -- from ocean currents to cloud formation -- that no one fully understands. Which is why the models are inherently flawed and forever changing. The doomsday scenarios posit a cascade of events, each with a certain probability. The multiple improbability of their simultaneous occurrence renders all such predictions entirely speculative. Yet on the basis of this speculation, environmental activists, attended by compliant scientists and opportunistic politicians, are advocating radical economic and social regulation. "The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity," warns Czech President Vaclav Klaus, "is no longer socialism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism." If you doubt the arrogance, you haven't seen that Newsweek cover story that declared the global warming debate over. Consider: If Newton's laws of motion could, after 200 years of unfailing experimental and experiential confirmation, be overthrown, it requires religious fervor to believe that global warming -- infinitely more untested, complex and speculative -- is a closed issue. But declaring it closed has its rewards. It not only dismisses skeptics as the running dogs of reaction, i.e., of Exxon, Cheney and now Klaus. By fiat, it also hugely re-empowers the intellectual left. For a century, an ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous knowledge class -- social planners, scientists, intellectuals, experts and their left-wing political allies -- arrogated to themselves the right to rule either in the name of the oppressed working class (communism) or, in its more benign form, by virtue of their superior expertise in achieving the highest social progress by means of state planning (socialism). Two decades ago, however, socialism and communism died rudely, then were buried forever by the empirical demonstration of the superiority of market capitalism everywhere from Thatcher's England to Deng's China, where just the partial abolition of socialism lifted more people out of poverty more rapidly than ever in human history. Just as the ash heap of history beckoned, the intellectual left was handed the ultimate salvation: environmentalism. Now the experts will regulate your life not in the name of the proletariat or Fabian socialism but -- even better -- in the name of Earth itself. Environmentalists are Gaia's priests, instructing us in her proper service and casting out those who refuse to genuflect. (See Newsweek above.) And having proclaimed the ultimate commandment -- carbon chastity -- they are preparing the supporting canonical legislation that will tell you how much you can travel, what kind of light you will read by, and at what temperature you may set your bedroom thermostat. Only Monday, a British parliamentary committee proposed that every citizen be required to carry a carbon card that must be presented, under penalty of law, when buying gasoline, taking an airplane or using electricity. The card contains your yearly carbon ration to be drawn down with every purchase, every trip, every swipe. There's no greater social power than the power to ration. And, other than rationing food, there is no greater instrument of social control than rationing energy, the currency of just about everything one does and uses in an advanced society. So what does the global warming agnostic propose as an alternative? First, more research -- untainted and reliable -- to determine (a) whether the carbon footprint of man is or is not lost among the massive natural forces (from sunspot activity to ocean currents) that affect climate, and (b) if the human effect is indeed significant, whether the planetary climate system has the homeostatic mechanisms (like the feedback loops in the human body, for example) with which to compensate. Second, reduce our carbon footprint in the interim by doing the doable, rather than the economically ruinous and socially destructive. The most obvious step is a major move to nuclear power, which to the atmosphere is the cleanest of the clean. But your would-be masters have foreseen this contingency. The Church of the Environment promulgates secondary dogmas as well. One of these is a strict nuclear taboo. Rather convenient, is it not? Take this major coal-substituting fix off the table, and we will be rationing all the more. Guess who does the rationing. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 31, 2008 14:02:35 GMT -5
Beat me to it, Cranky.
I thought it was a very enlightening article (of course, it says what I believe so it must be brilliant, too).
I love the term global warming agnostic -- that's me.
Unfortunately, the "true believers" are in positions of power -- teaching our children, so they won't hear "The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity," warns Czech President Vaclav Klaus, "is no longer socialism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism."
|
|
|
|
Post by HABsurd on Jun 2, 2008 18:52:56 GMT -5
Wow. Brilliant? You really think so? So bringing up anecdotal straw men is what passes for discourse on this issue? Incidentally, Krauthammer's analogy to Newton betrays an astonishing ignorance about the nature of scientific theory. Not that I should be surprised. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 2, 2008 19:11:48 GMT -5
[So bringing up anecdotal straw men is what passes for discourse on this issue? And declaring the issue closed also passes for discourse? [not saying you . . . the GW police] Reminds me of the whole York U "discussion" on reproductive "choice": a woman has a right to choose and everyone is allowed to express their opiniions on the issue except those who are not pro-choice [read: pro abortion]: Gilary Massa, vice-president external of the York Federation of Students, said student clubs will be free to discuss abortion in student space, as long as they do it "within a pro-choice realm," and that all clubs will be investigated to ensure compliance. linkI don't want to flip this to another topic . . . just to say that discourse means discourse -- hey, even disagreement -- but don't tell me that I'm wrong and that's the end of it. No discussion tehre. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Jun 2, 2008 23:26:08 GMT -5
Wow. Brilliant? You really think so? So bringing up anecdotal straw men is what passes for discourse on this issue? Incidentally, Krauthammer's analogy to Newton betrays an astonishing ignorance about the nature of scientific theory. Not that I should be surprised. I especially enjoyed the thinly unveiled analogy comparing anyone who believes in some aspect of climate change to socialism. This article's as slanted as any other that people tend to bring to the forefront and debase. It takes the leftest of left wing environmentalists and paints my face with that brush. Well, if you think that's brilliant, I know one black guy who once stole one television that you can use as a beanpole to label a large group of people. It seems that some people won't believe any research or insight short of it being funded by oil companies itself (who indeed release their own unbelievable research), because obviously anyone who pays for research into the matter has an agenda. I'll leave those looking for "untainted" research to do so, because you'll die while waiting. I don't doubt that nobody decided to research anything about Charles Krauthammer before reading this. He lives in a large glass house and shouldn't be throwing stones about "untainted"-ness. As an aside, I have a hard time taking anyone seriously who decides it's their job to opine on every issue on this side of the moon. Krauthammer is one of those people. edited for typos. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 2, 2008 23:41:42 GMT -5
Wow. Brilliant? You really think so? So bringing up anecdotal straw men is what passes for discourse on this issue? Incidentally, Krauthammer's analogy to Newton betrays an astonishing ignorance about the nature of scientific theory. Not that I should be surprised. Really? Versus derived "conclusions" based on sketchy data and questionable science driven by a lust for social control at any cost. Let's face it, left wing politicians are falling all over themselves to spew pseudo morality about the sky falling to tax EVERYTHING. Witness Quebecs tax grab and Ontario new tax grab on electronics. In case you haven't heard the news, global warming has been postponed to for 10 or 20 year......if ever. And this comes from the Grand Wizard Noel Keenlyside of global warming, err global-cooling, err climate-change, err any-malarkey-we-can-spew-because-we-are-self-important. The sad part of all this is that it's taking attention away from real pollution. Worse still, this Chicken-EcoLittle-sky-falling routine is going to make people disbelieve some real future calamity. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 2, 2008 23:53:50 GMT -5
Wow. Brilliant? You really think so? So bringing up anecdotal straw men is what passes for discourse on this issue? Incidentally, Krauthammer's analogy to Newton betrays an astonishing ignorance about the nature of scientific theory. Not that I should be surprised. I especially enjoyed the thinly unveiled analogy comparing anyone who believes in some aspect of climate change to socialism. This article's as slanted as any other that people tend to bring to the forefront and debase. It takes the rightest of right wing environmentalists and paints my face with that brush. Well, if you think that's brilliant, I know one black guy who once stole one television that you can use as a beanpole to label a large group of people. It seems that some people won't believe any research or insight short of it being funded by oil companies itself (who indeed release their own unbelievable research), because obviously anyone who pays for research into the matter has an agenda. I'll leave those looking for "untainted" research to do so, because you'll die while waiting. I don't doubt that nobody decided to research anything about Charles Krauthammer before reading this. He lives in a large glass house and shouldn't be throwing stones about "untainted"-ness. As an aside, I have a hard time taking anyone seriously who decides it's their job to opine on every issue on this side of the moon. Krauthammer is one of those people. In case you haven't noticed, the left politicos has hijacked this debate to spin tax after tax covering in pseudo morality of "saving the earth". Heck, we got two national left wing parties fighting over the which method they will use to tear us a new one in taxes. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 2, 2008 23:58:11 GMT -5
Haven't these people heard that the debate is over? Damn deniers should burn in hell......  ~~~~~~~~~~ www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289~~~~~~~~~~~ Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age Lorne Gunter, National Post Published: Monday, February 25, 2008 Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966. The U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reported that many American cities and towns suffered record cold temperatures in January and early February. According to the NCDC, the average temperature in January "was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average." China is surviving its most brutal winter in a century. Temperatures in the normally balmy south were so low for so long that some middle-sized cities went days and even weeks without electricity because once power lines had toppled it was too cold or too icy to repair them. There have been so many snow and ice storms in Ontario and Quebec in the past two months that the real estate market has felt the pinch as home buyers have stayed home rather than venturing out looking for new houses. In just the first two weeks of February, Toronto received 70 cm of snow, smashing the record of 66.6 cm for the entire month set back in the pre-SUV, pre-Kyoto, pre-carbon footprint days of 1950. And remember the Arctic Sea ice? The ice we were told so hysterically last fall had melted to its "lowest levels on record? Never mind that those records only date back as far as 1972 and that there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts in the past. The ice is back. Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year. OK, so one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades. But if environmentalists and environment reporters can run around shrieking about the manmade destruction of the natural order every time a robin shows up on Georgian Bay two weeks early, then it is at least fair game to use this winter's weather stories to wonder whether the alarmist are being a tad premature. And it's not just anecdotal evidence that is piling up against the climate-change dogma. (I like the word "dogma")According to Robert Toggweiler of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University and Joellen Russell, assistant professor of biogeochemical dynamics at the University of Arizona -- two prominent climate modellers -- the computer models that show polar ice-melt cooling the oceans, stopping the circulation of warm equatorial water to northern latitudes and triggering another Ice Age (a la the movie The Day After Tomorrow) are all wrong. "We missed what was right in front of our eyes," says Prof. Russell. It's not ice melt but rather wind circulation that drives ocean currents northward from the tropics. Climate models until now have not properly accounted for the wind's effects on ocean circulation, so researchers have compensated by over-emphasizing the role of manmade warming on polar ice melt. But when Profs. Toggweiler and Russell rejigged their model to include the 40-year cycle of winds away from the equator (then back towards it again), the role of ocean currents bringing warm southern waters to the north was obvious in the current Arctic warming. Last month, Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, shrugged off manmade climate change as "a drop in the bucket." Showing that solar activity has entered an inactive phase, Prof. Sorokhtin advised people to "stock up on fur coats." He is not alone. Kenneth Tapping of our own National Research Council, who oversees a giant radio telescope focused on the sun, is convinced we are in for a long period of severely cold weather if sunspot activity does not pick up soon.. (The sun causing climate change? IMPOSSIBLE. That is PURE HERESY and the sun is now officially a "denier".) The last time the sun was this inactive, Earth suffered the Little Ice Age that lasted about five centuries and ended in 1850. Crops failed through killer frosts and drought. Famine, plague and war were widespread. Harbours froze, so did rivers, and trade ceased. It's way too early to claim the same is about to happen again, but then it's way too early for the hysteria of the global warmers, too. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 3, 2008 0:16:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Jun 3, 2008 0:30:45 GMT -5
I'm just going to recommit to my abstaining from comment in this debate on this particular website, which I've done before, and somehow got sucked in by being called a socialist from a crackpot "journalist." Heaven forbid the human race take any stance BEFORE a critical mass, at some point in its' history.
I will, however, continue to enjoy the articles posted here which all seem to cling to one particular data point, and twist words to make them sound like lies and deception.
edit: Not that there isn't real evidence one way or another available, I've just yet to see any here.
|
|
|
|
Post by ropoflu on Jun 3, 2008 5:46:58 GMT -5
Deniers... believers...
"In contraposition to scientific debates , rhetorical arguments, do not make use of demonstrable or tested truths, but resort to fallible opinions, popular perceptions, transient beliefs, chosen evidence or evidence at hand (like statistics), which are all properly called commonplaces as they help establish a commonality of understanding between the orator or rhetor and his/her audience."
Just passing by to say hello.
Later.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 3, 2008 6:03:46 GMT -5
Hey, Red -- I'm with you. I say "I'm out of this discussion" and get sucked back in [boy do I need a life].
I wouldn't presume to speak for any cranky person, just myself.
The problem, as I see it, is rhetoric spewing from leaders of both sides of the issue. It's almost like an dall-or-nothing proposition -- "it's all man's fault" or "it ain't our fault".
Fact is, the world is in a mess -- a mess partially of our creation, and a mess we can have a hand in cleaning up.
However, the one side is so busy arguing that the mess is insignificant or not our fault that they don't come up with any positive suggestions for improving things, and the other side is so busy arguing that the mess is so deep the only way to get out is for western culture to readically change, and at the same time by carbon credits from non-industrialized nations and from nations that are blatantly causing more problems. Hence my dilemna. I am opposed to paying credits and I'm opposed to doing nothing!
As for Mr. Dion, Mr. Layton, and the others who want revenue-neutural taxation, do they think we are stupid? [yes they do and yes we are]. "We'll tax the companies and not individuals" -- and we'll buy the idea that the taxes won't be passed on to us. Then complain when prices get too high.
A real plan would be to encourage less consumption, less packaging (ridiculous the amount of plastic you have to cut through to get at something like a printer cartridge), more mass transit (in Ottawa, bus fares keep going up -- this makes me want to take the bus?) instead of fear-mongering (eventually we'll tune out).
More later . . . when I get sucked back in ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 3, 2008 6:19:31 GMT -5
I was driving out to a community yesterday to get evidence for DFO that our scour control baffle designs create fish habitat, so we can get permission to start construction ..... (long story) .... but I took our biologist along to show me how to differentiate between the different fish habitats. Well the drive proved to be somewhat surprising.... this guy has hundreds of plants, his cubicle at work is like a jungle and he is always telling me all about his carniverous plants and the videos of them he posts on youtube..
... the discussion somehow got on to global warming. I was keeping my mouth shut, not wanting to spark him off .... "Bill, what do you think of global warming?" .... silence ... then he spouts off about how it is all hogwash, fear-mongering, and complete BS.
The way he explained it was that heat creates biomass, creates greenery, and therefore heat actually causing increased CO2 ... not the other way around. He was more than happy to have the ice-melt (albeit he was iffy if it was), cause it was created habitat for species that weren't there for hundreds/thousands of years. I can't remember all he said ... I was dumbfounded to be actually hearing it ... but thought it interesting to say the least.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 3, 2008 6:37:42 GMT -5
Saw a program last week on the Discovery Channel that links the climate change being experienced in Europe and North America to sea-surface temperatures in the Indian Ocean. I couldn't hear it all (I was watching it in an airport waiting for my flight ... oh and that was a short haul flight and my first in over 5 years - Al Gore would be proud) but the gist of it was as follows ....
.... the climate change being experienced now can not be replicated through computer programs that scientists use and rely on. So they hypothesize that another outside agent they haven't considered is affecting the NOrth Atlantic Oscilliation (NAO). The NAO is a pattern of sea-level pressures (one a high pressure, the other a low pressure) in the Atlantic ocean that are always there .... they influence the track of storms and the influence and strength of westerly winds.
The theory developed on the program was that Indian Ocean is warming up quicker than other Oceans (two of the worlds biggest developing nations who are exempt from Kyoto ... imagine that) and this creates a larger suource of atmospheric moisture. If it goes up, it must come down and this updraft creates winds that blows across Africa. Northern Africa is all sand ... the sand gets blown out to sea and causes even warmer conditions in North America and contributes to the creation of storms and so forth ....
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jun 3, 2008 10:49:12 GMT -5
There has been a dramatic climate chnge on Jupiter. The Giant Red Spot is now accompanied by two other major hurricanes, one of which although not as wide as the Red Spot, may have faster winds and is growing.
Undoubtedly this too is George "W" Bush's fault and his Hummer driving meat eating oil drilling weapons making friends.
Have a nice day.
|
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Jun 3, 2008 12:06:32 GMT -5
So I "abstained" and immediately responded to four posts. Now I know why my girlfriend tells me I never shut up. Hopefully it's endearing. Hey, Red -- I'm with you. I say "I'm out of this discussion" and get sucked back in [boy do I need a life]. I wouldn't presume to speak for any cranky person, just myself. ... [...] by (sic) carbon credits from non-industrialized nations and from nations that are blatantly causing more problems. Hence my dilemna. I am opposed to paying credits and I'm opposed to doing nothing! As for Mr. Dion, Mr. Layton, and the others who want revenue-neutural taxation, do they think we are stupid? [yes they do and yes we are]. "We'll tax the companies and not individuals" -- and we'll buy the idea that the taxes won't be passed on to us. Then complain when prices get too high. A real plan would be to encourage less consumption, less packaging (ridiculous the amount of plastic you have to cut through to get at something like a printer cartridge), more mass transit (in Ottawa, bus fares keep going up -- this makes me want to take the bus?) instead of fear-mongering (eventually we'll tune out). I think by abstaining, I'm just not going to debate the yes/no aspect of the debate and instead concentrate on proposing solutions and discussing the options to satisfy all. I agree regarding less consumption, but the only way to make people consume less is to make it costly to consume more. For instance, that means taxing on packaging at the industry level, which pushes their prices up, which then gets passed onto the consumer who will choose the product with less packaging. For the life of me, I don't know why we don't have a tax on plastic or non-recyclable packaging and make companies print on the package how much the consumer is paying for that packaging. THAT would have an impact, because if I knew I was paying an extra 5 or 10 cents for a product just so it could have thicker plastic, I wouldn't buy it. Regarding buying credits from non-industrialized nations. If we offset the cost of the credits with whatever aid is already going to those countries, what's the problem with it? I think third world development is really the goal of these carbon credits, not necessarily any environmental factor since they more or less encourage stagnation, not reduction. But I don't really have a problem with our aid being auctioned to countries which need it. Also, we could theoretically auction the credits to countries that we feel are doing something with them. i.e. not buying guns, nukes (looking at you Kim Jong-il) or producing cocaine or opiates, but instead building wells, hospitals and infrastructure. ... He was more than happy to have the ice-melt (albeit he was iffy if it was), cause it was created habitat for species that weren't there for hundreds/thousands of years. I can't remember all he said ... I was dumbfounded to be actually hearing it ... but thought it interesting to say the least. Not to discredit your biologist friend, but it sounds like he thinks the world would be more interesting for him (as a biologist) with the ice caps melting, not necessarily better or worse off for it. Saw a program last week on the Discovery Channel that links the climate change being experienced in Europe and North America to sea-surface temperatures in the Indian Ocean. ... The theory developed on the program was that Indian Ocean is warming up quicker than other Oceans (two of the worlds biggest developing nations who are exempt from Kyoto ... imagine that) and this creates a larger suource of atmospheric moisture. If it goes up, it must come down and this updraft creates winds that blows across Africa. Northern Africa is all sand ... the sand gets blown out to sea and causes even warmer conditions in North America and contributes to the creation of storms and so forth .... That's actually really neat. Do you remember what the name of the program was? I'm a die hard Discovery Channel HD viewer (I swear, in HD it's the best channel on television) but haven't seen that (yet). There has been a dramatic climate chnge on Jupiter. The Giant Red Spot is now accompanied by two other major hurricanes, one of which although not as wide as the Red Spot, may have faster winds and is growing. Undoubtedly this too is George "W" Bush's fault and his Hummer driving meat eating oil drilling weapons making friends. Have a nice day. I recall reading that there are theories abound about those hurricanes being (at least partly?) caused by the impact of Hale-Bopp into Jupiter's atmosphere, which caused a low-pressure wake behind the comet and subsequently the winds formed into a hurricane. Something like that. Don't quote me on it. But if a comet impacted Earth and the climate changed, I'd be blaming Bush, too.  Where's our interstellar missile system?! |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 3, 2008 13:59:47 GMT -5
For the life of me, I don't know why we don't have a tax on plastic or non-recyclable packaging and make companies print on the package how much the consumer is paying for that packaging. THAT would have an impact, because if I knew I was paying an extra 5 or 10 cents for a product just so it could have thicker plastic, I wouldn't buy it. Why put a tax on packaging that is past on to the consumer ..... just go strait to the heart of the matter and ban it outright. A tax like that goes direct to the consumer. Just ban it and, yes we will pay more, but it wont affect the companies bottom line as much as adverising on the packaging the cost of the packaging tax. And this is the problem ... if the program I saw on the Discovery Network is correct. It is the Indian Ocean that is causing the imbalance in North America. The data correlates with the development of India and China ..... I'll keep my eye out for it again ... not sure what it was called, only saw it in the airport terminal. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 3, 2008 14:41:51 GMT -5
So I "abstained" and immediately responded to four posts. Now I know why my girlfriend tells me I never shut up. Hopefully it's endearing. Like a moth to a flame . . . now I know why I never get any work done [actually, busy season for me and I justify this by the fact that I needa break. Oh . . . bad news . . . it probably isn’t endearing. I’m with skilly: if it’s a bad thing, just go strait to the heart of the matter and ban it outright. A tax like that goes direct to the consumer. Just ban it and, yes we will pay more, but it wont affect the companies bottom line as much as adverising on the packaging the cost of the packaging tax. I’m not sure that we’d pay more, though. And my life would become easier – when I buy something I won’t have to cut through thick plastic, slice through thin plastic, break into a box, take off more plastic, unwrap even more plastic, and tear off the protective plastic. Sheesh – have you noticed what you have to go through just to get at something you bought? No problem – but that isn’t what is happening. We give aid, then we are to give them money on top of it because they are not yet industrialized. And it doesn’t necessarily end our destruction of the ozone layer/atmosphere/planet/solar system/whatever because we can keep spewing. Some think it is an encouragement to reduce, but the fact is that added costs are passed on to you and me. Unfortunately, our “aid” is also to be sent to India and China, two of the biggest culprits in the pollution game. We are buying credits from them even though they spew more than the US (who has done a better job at reduction than Canada has). Interesting debate in the National Post today [don’t have time to find and link to the article] regarding carbon tax vrs credits. I love your optimism that such a thing would happen. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Jun 3, 2008 14:48:36 GMT -5
For the life of me, I don't know why we don't have a tax on plastic or non-recyclable packaging and make companies print on the package how much the consumer is paying for that packaging. THAT would have an impact, because if I knew I was paying an extra 5 or 10 cents for a product just so it could have thicker plastic, I wouldn't buy it. Why put a tax on packaging that is past on to the consumer ..... just go strait to the heart of the matter and ban it outright. A tax like that goes direct to the consumer. Just ban it and, yes we will pay more, but it wont affect the companies bottom line as much as adverising on the packaging the cost of the packaging tax. It's the same effect, and banning it outright means we move back to paper and glass packaging, which has its own issues. The cost is still passed onto the consumer, at least in my proposal, the consumer can opt to pay it, or not, and they're aware of the practices of companies. I believe in transparency above all else, so if the consumer were aware of what portion of their paycheque was being taxed because of a company who used unnecessary packaging, I think it would be revealing enough to make a difference. A plastics tax could offset an income tax decrease, even. I'm very much a moderate in that I believe that if you put the money in the consumers' hands, they'll drive the market. But at the same time I believe it's the job of the government to influence the market to direct social (not economic) benefits for the country as a whole. Besides, having plastic packaging isn't the problem, it's the use of recyclable cheap plastics in packaging. Certain hard plastics are 100% recyclable if I recall correctly (some other "necessary" plastics like plastic bags are less so, but still recyclable to up to 80% or so), so why not use it? It's still cheaper than milling trees or blowing glass. I'll keep my eye out for it again ... not sure what it was called, only saw it in the airport terminal. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 3, 2008 20:23:17 GMT -5
Why put a tax on packaging that is past on to the consumer ..... just go strait to the heart of the matter and ban it outright. A tax like that goes direct to the consumer. Just ban it and, yes we will pay more, but it wont affect the companies bottom line as much as adverising on the packaging the cost of the packaging tax. It's the same effect, and banning it outright means we move back to paper and glass packaging, which has its own issues. The cost is still passed onto the consumer, at least in my proposal, the consumer can opt to pay it, or not, and they're aware of the practices of companies. I believe in transparency above all else, so if the consumer were aware of what portion of their paycheque was being taxed because of a company who used unnecessary packaging, I think it would be revealing enough to make a difference. A plastics tax could offset an income tax decrease, even. I'm very much a moderate in that I believe that if you put the money in the consumers' hands, they'll drive the market. But at the same time I believe it's the job of the government to influence the market to direct social (not economic) benefits for the country as a whole. Besides, having plastic packaging isn't the problem, it's the use of recyclable cheap plastics in packaging. Certain hard plastics are 100% recyclable if I recall correctly (some other "necessary" plastics like plastic bags are less so, but still recyclable to up to 80% or so), so why not use it? It's still cheaper than milling trees or blowing glass. Yes and no .... for starters if consumers stopped buying something because of how or what it is packaged in, then the business could go under (and depending on the products) and our economy is affected, jobs are lost ... etc. Depending on the alternate packaging options, the price could go up and down ... (if they find better techniques) but the consumer would still pay for the packaging, but it would be built into the price and it wouldn't scare them away from buying it just by looking at the package..... |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Jun 3, 2008 20:44:33 GMT -5
It's the same effect, and banning it outright means we move back to paper and glass packaging, which has its own issues. The cost is still passed onto the consumer, at least in my proposal, the consumer can opt to pay it, or not, and they're aware of the practices of companies. I believe in transparency above all else, so if the consumer were aware of what portion of their paycheque was being taxed because of a company who used unnecessary packaging, I think it would be revealing enough to make a difference. A plastics tax could offset an income tax decrease, even. I'm very much a moderate in that I believe that if you put the money in the consumers' hands, they'll drive the market. But at the same time I believe it's the job of the government to influence the market to direct social (not economic) benefits for the country as a whole. Besides, having plastic packaging isn't the problem, it's the use of recyclable cheap plastics in packaging. Certain hard plastics are 100% recyclable if I recall correctly (some other "necessary" plastics like plastic bags are less so, but still recyclable to up to 80% or so), so why not use it? It's still cheaper than milling trees or blowing glass. Yes and no .... for starters if consumers stopped buying something because of how or what it is packaged in, then the business could go under (and depending on the products) and our economy is affected, jobs are lost ... etc. I would say to that, that a business that doesn't adjust to market demands deserves to go under. The moment consumers stopped buying their products because of packaging, the packaging would change. Jobs would be redistributed in this case to the manufacturer that adjusted accordingly, not necessarily lost. Depending on the alternate packaging options, the price could go up and down ... (if they find better techniques) but the consumer would still pay for the packaging, but it would be built into the price and it wouldn't scare them away from buying it just by looking at the package..... The tax I proposed is levied at the industry level, and only that they would be required to report that tax on the packaging. It's built into the price. Thing along the lines of a nutritional value table, but for the packaging contents. It's not if they can find better techniques. They exist. Using recyclable plastics like PET is marginally more expensive to the tune of a few cents per 100 grams or something. I'm only proposing taxes be levied to discourage businesses from using the cheaper plastics so that the production isn't cheaper than using a recyclable plastic. By all means, if other packaging ends up being cheaper then they can use that instead. And hey, if a consumer wants to pay a few extra cents for some fancy unrecyclable packaging, they should feel free to do that as well. One of the problems in Canada is that oil is sufficiently cheap that recycling isn't efficient enough for many companies. Encouraging companies to produce only a few types of plastics would create enough supply of those plastics to push the price down and make it feasible to use them. At the moment, the recycling programs in many areas don't do anything with most kinds of plastics (types 3 and above for the most part), and in many circumstances they're given (for free) to some local companies and then exported in pellet form to Europe where recycling is 1) socially applauded and 2) as cheap, if not cheaper, than using oil to produce new plastics. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 3, 2008 22:39:25 GMT -5
Saw a program last week on the Discovery Channel that links the climate change being experienced in Europe and North America to sea-surface temperatures in the Indian Ocean. I couldn't hear it all (I was watching it in an airport waiting for my flight ... oh and that was a short haul flight and my first in over 5 years - Al Gore would be proud) but the gist of it was as follows .... .... the climate change being experienced now can not be replicated through computer programs that scientists use and rely on. So they hypothesize that another outside agent they haven't considered is affecting the NOrth Atlantic Oscilliation (NAO). The NAO is a pattern of sea-level pressures (one a high pressure, the other a low pressure) in the Atlantic ocean that are always there .... they influence the track of storms and the influence and strength of westerly winds. The theory developed on the program was that Indian Ocean is warming up quicker than other Oceans (two of the worlds biggest developing nations who are exempt from Kyoto ... imagine that) and this creates a larger suource of atmospheric moisture. If it goes up, it must come down and this updraft creates winds that blows across Africa. Northern Africa is all sand ... the sand gets blown out to sea and causes even warmer conditions in North America and contributes to the creation of storms and so forth .... About three years ago, I sent e-mails to several global warming "gurus" and scientist that had written articles in science magazines. Some I sent twice. I even sent one to Suzuki. This is the question I asked.... "I am interested to know how oceans can affect atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. From commonly available data, the ocean contains between 50 and 60 times the amount of CO2 that the atmosphere carries. Could a change in ocean currents or surface temperature change the atmospheric carbon dioxide level?"Simple question. Mathematically, a 3% change in the ocean CO2 levels would DOUBLE atmoshperic CO2 levels. Even ONE ocean going through a change would affect world wide CO2 levels. NOBODY responded. I wonder why?? Over the years, I also requested research data an a couple of global warming articles is science magazines. Never got anything. I even tried getting information through my friend who is a professor in the National Technical University of Athens. He was insulted when one of the responses was that he was not an "accredited researcher in the field". What the hell does that mean? My wife can get medical studies with a phone call but a professor can't get statistical information on "global warming science". Yeah, right.... Here is a challange for anyone in here who "believes". E-mail/write/call the Toronto Star and ask their "climate change" reporters to post a a major article that contradicts global warming in the spirit of "balanced reporting". Good luck..... |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 3, 2008 22:44:36 GMT -5
edit: Not that there isn't real evidence one way or another available, I've just yet to see any here. Do you have any or have access to any "real" evidence? |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jun 4, 2008 0:30:46 GMT -5
A CO2 tax?
Everytime somebody exhales O'bama will tax them.
Only sure thing will be death or taxes.
|
|
Where's our interstellar missile system?!