You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Vancouver Off-Topic / Current EventsThe off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum.
"As we head into the United Nations climate talks in Cancun later this month, it is unacceptable that Canada's only climate change legislation has been defeated after years of majority support from our elected members of parliament and their constituents."
Canada is the only country in the industrialize world to:
-sign and ratify the Kyoto protocol and then announce that it has no intention of honouring its commitments;
-return from Copenhagen and announce that it is weakening its targets;
-allow its only major federal program supporting renewable energy to run out of money;
-allow its only major federal program supporting home efficiency to run out of money; and
-actively work to weaken climate change policy in the United States and Europe.
For those who don't know last year Canada was given the title the "Colosal Fossil" for receiving the most fossil of the day awards that are given to countries that do the most to obstruct climate change negotiations.
FINALLY they are coming to their senses on this issue. I'm all for studying whether climate change is caused by us, or can be changed for the better. But mostly it isn't an issue we know enough about to make such drastic measures like the kyoto accord.
Most of the proponents of the climate change theory resemble religious fanatics more than scientists. Posted via RS Mobile
I wouldn't call the Kyoto Accord drastic, a 5% reduction of emission levels from 20 years ago along with joint implementation. Especially when compared to the IPCC goals of reducing 25-40% from 1990
Failing to achieve it is one thing, working against it is another. Canada has one of the highest per capita greenhouse gas emissions in the world.
Climate change has scientific evidence and setting targets to reduce risk can't be bad for the environment, and regardless of being correct or not taking action with such low costs towards risk avoidance seems worth it to me. It's like the conclusion to "the most terrifying video you'll ever see"
Regardless I don't support the not giving a shit outlook by the non-elected members because it's nondemocratic. The story here is not just about climate change but the fact that the government basically cheated the canadian public.
China and the USA still put out 10 times the total greenhouse gas emissions we do. We're a drop in the bucket.
I am talking per capita, we have one of the most polluting lifestyles out there. That's not a feasible argument for the government to say that because we are insignificant we don't need to reduce.
I know you're talking per capita, that's why I said it still is nothing compared to total output of those countries. A reduction for us would be insignificant to those same reductions applied to the USA or China. Like Canada could cut greenhouse gas emissions to ZERO and still only impact the world by 2%.
I am talking per capita, we have one of the most polluting lifestyles out there. That's not a feasible argument for the government to say that because we are insignificant we don't need to reduce.
maybe it's because we live so close to the North Pole.
I remember talking about this in Geography 12, and most of the class came to the conclusion that because we live in a such a cold environment, we need more fuel for heating.
maybe it's because we live so close to the North Pole.
I remember talking about this in Geography 12, and most of the class came to the conclusion that because we live in a such a cold environment, we need more fuel for heating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Great68
I know you're talking per capita, that's why I said it still is nothing compared to total output of those countries. A reduction for us would be insignificant to those same reductions applied to the USA or China. Like Canada could cut greenhouse gas emissions to ZERO and still only impact the world by 2%.
That is an extremely irresponsible way to look at it, but I know what you mean of course however, The way Kyoto works is that with joint implementation, Canada can choose to invest money to help other countries reduce emissions especially if it is more cost effective there. But if you read the article you'd learn that canada really hasn't implemented any positive motions towards reducing emissions even though they have ratified the accord.
i got into becoming an electrician originally because of sustainability and renewable energy.
you'll be amazed at the ZERO incentive our provincial and gov't have. because its renewable and they cant charge or sell it to you. they dont give a shit about the greater good
I only answer to my username, my real name is Irrelevant!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CELICAland
Posts: 25,679
Thanked 10,395 Times in 3,918 Posts
Failed 1,390 Times in 625 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinnyPupp
FINALLY they are coming to their senses on this issue. I'm all for studying whether climate change is caused by us, or can be changed for the better. But mostly it isn't an issue we know enough about to make such drastic measures like the kyoto accord.
Most of the proponents of the climate change theory resemble religious fanatics more than scientists. Posted via RS Mobile
Regardless I don't support the not giving a shit outlook by the non-elected members because it's nondemocratic. The story here is not just about climate change but the fact that the government basically cheated the canadian public.
You must vote NDP.
The Conservatives are committed to reducing greenhouse gases, they just chose targets that are not as aggressive as Kyoto: 17% less than 2005. To say they are doing nothing is blasphemous. Plus they don't wish to support the political and economic non-sense of the carbon trading aspect of Kyoto, and I completely agree with that.
^ I'm not sure where you got that statistic but understand that the problem right now is not whether the bill should've been passed or not, but the way the conservative government handled it. Taking advantage of 15 liberal senators being absent and calling a vote out of nowhere without debate.
FINALLY they are coming to their senses on this issue. I'm all for studying whether climate change is caused by us, or can be changed for the better. But mostly it isn't an issue we know enough about to make such drastic measures like the kyoto accord.
Most of the proponents of the climate change theory resemble religious fanatics more than scientists. Posted via RS Mobile
So we wait and study climate change until when?
At what point do we decide that yes, climate change is happening and was either caused by humans or naturally; or no, there is no climate change and nothing has to be done about it.
As far as we know, climate change is happening. The climate now is not what it was even 50 years ago and the polar ice caps are melting which is not what they have done in the past. If this change is a result of human action or nature is uncertain.
Regardless of the cause of climate change if we don't do anything now there will be consequences in the future. We know that CO2 is a contributing factor in global warming, so why not try and do something about it? If we reduced our CO2 levels and became more aware of ecological impact on the environment what is the worse that could happen?
I think that if the US conservative party would stop flatly denying climate change and were willing to consider it, then major changes could occur. Almost all other developed nations agree that climate change is happening and are at least trying to do something about it.
It doesn't matter if your impact is small as long as it makes a change.
I know you're talking per capita, that's why I said it still is nothing compared to total output of those countries. A reduction for us would be insignificant to those same reductions applied to the USA or China. Like Canada could cut greenhouse gas emissions to ZERO and still only impact the world by 2%.
i read somewhere that due to Canada's proximity to the North pole and melting ice-cap, polluting further North has a much more devastating impact than polluting near the equator
^ I'm not sure where you got that statistic but understand that the problem right now is not whether the bill should've been passed or not, but the way the conservative government handled it. Taking advantage of 15 liberal senators being absent and calling a vote out of nowhere without debate.
You were just ranting about how the government cheated the country out of doing anything, when you don't even know what the government is doing. Stop ranting and start listening, those stats have been posted in many of the articles on this subject in the last few days.
The number of Conservative senators outnumber the Liberal senators regardless if they are away. 52 to 49, or enough to strike this down without any of your so-called political controversy.
Yes Harper did nominate senators when he said he would not, yet the number he has nominated is proportional to most other PMs over his term. What is lost in all this is why the opposition parties are against senator term limits - this would encourage roll over and balance the senate over time.
I agree with what you are saying but it is still undemocratic to kill a bill passed by elected representatives and I stand by that
It is still unfair to vote without debate and with one third of your opposing senate missing. The mature thing to have done if they disagreed would've been to amend or delay the bill over intelligent discussion. Although morals = a lot of time and money wasted.
Personally I support bill C-10 because the current system is absolutely retarded. Opposition is just being sore about the outrage of c-311
EDIT: Lol a lot of people on this thread keep talking about climate change without actually reading about the political issue. gotta love RS haha
I agree with what you are saying but it is still undemocratic to kill a bill passed by elected representatives and I stand by that
It is still unfair to vote without debate and with one third of your opposing senate missing. The mature thing to have done if they disagreed would've been to amend or delay the bill over intelligent discussion. Although morals = a lot of time and money wasted.
Personally I support bill C-10 because the current system is absolutely retarded. Opposition is just being sore about the outrage of c-311
EDIT: Lol a lot of people on this thread keep talking about climate change without actually reading about the political issue. gotta love RS haha
Then what is the purpose of having 2 houses? If the second house passed everything the first house proposed, then we could just get rid of senators completely.
I understand they completely killed it without sending it to committee, and that seems heavy handed, yet I don't think many understand that political aspect of what happened. The reason I think they just killed it was cause it has been 5 years in the making, and sending it back for rework just wasn't going to accomplish anything. The Conservatives have been very clear about objecting to Kyoto - so sending it to committee would be dooming it to another 5 years of meaningless discussion.
I actually like the heavy handed approach, rather than wasting more political time on something the majority of Canadians do not support. You can be green and still accept that some jobs are just dirty, and that trading carbon credits on the market only moves the problem to somewhere no-one will see it.
We've been waiting a few hundred million years, how about a few more?
Quote:
Originally Posted by asian_speedster
At what point do we decide that yes, climate change is happening and was either caused by humans or naturally; or no, there is no climate change and nothing has to be done about it.
Either way, it would probably be too late. The earth has gone through catastrophic climate changes many times, and there is no way we could have done anything about it if they had happened today or a million years from now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asian_speedster
As far as we know, climate change is happening. The climate now is not what it was even 50 years ago and the polar ice caps are melting which is not what they have done in the past. If this change is a result of human action or nature is uncertain.
Wrong. As far as we know, the earth is going through its natural paces.
Wrong. In some areas of the world, the climate is cooler one year over the other, and warmer other years. There is no overall climate change we have recorded.
Wrong. Some ice caps are melting, some are growing.
You are correct in assuming that if a climate change was taking place, and was recordable and discoverable, we still wouldn't know for sure if we were causing it or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asian_speedster
Regardless of the cause of climate change if we don't do anything now there will be consequences in the future. We know that CO2 is a contributing factor in global warming, so why not try and do something about it? If we reduced our CO2 levels and became more aware of ecological impact on the environment what is the worse that could happen?
We don't "know" CO2 contributes to "global warming" because the whole idea of "global warming" hasn't been proven yet. The only people who think that are the environmentalists, who are akin to religious fanatics. And fear mongers like Al Gore who are akin to the Pope.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asian_speedster
I think that if the US conservative party would stop flatly denying climate change and were willing to consider it, then major changes could occur. Almost all other developed nations agree that climate change is happening and are at least trying to do something about it.
Almost all developed nations agree that it is happening so they can get in on the new eco-economy. Japan is one of the leaders in this. They generate billions in making products that supposedly "help" the "problems" they assume the earth is having. Maybe that's a better thing to base an economy on than oil for the future.. But as far as 'climate change' it's irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asian_speedster
It doesn't matter if your impact is small as long as it makes a change.
A change to what? As you now know, there is nothing we have recorded that needs changing.
^thanking you sir
as i dont have the patience to type all that shit out, and at the end of the day its completely a fruitless endevour as these people have already had their minds made up for them
mass media is sure a bitch
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by RRxtar
Ugliness and fatness are genetic disorders, much like baldness or necrophilia, and it's only your fault if you don't hate yourself enough to do something about it.
Then what is the purpose of having 2 houses? If the second house passed everything the first house proposed, then we could just get rid of senators completely.
I understand they completely killed it without sending it to committee, and that seems heavy handed, yet I don't think many understand that political aspect of what happened. The reason I think they just killed it was cause it has been 5 years in the making, and sending it back for rework just wasn't going to accomplish anything. The Conservatives have been very clear about objecting to Kyoto - so sending it to committee would be dooming it to another 5 years of meaningless discussion.
I actually like the heavy handed approach, rather than wasting more political time on something the majority of Canadians do not support. You can be green and still accept that some jobs are just dirty, and that trading carbon credits on the market only moves the problem to somewhere no-one will see it.
I don't know IMO the senate has always been pretty useless :P Objecting to Kyoto is different from bill C-311 however. Kyoto's demands are different from what the house of commons has agreed on.
@skinnypupp Whether emissions are causing climate change is debatable, but to have generally better air quality by reducing emissions isn't hurting anyone and has been scientifically linked to negative health effects
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
