Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 4 of 5
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Cool Blue





Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 3130
Reputation: 114.9
votes: 10
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 12:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Making the tar sands emission free is very simple: build nuclear reactors.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 1:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Evilgenius wrote:
That said, our environment is far, far cleaner than it was in the 1960s. We're probably in the area of sharply diminishing returns now. Small improvements in the environment are likely to come at a very great cost to us. Again, I wish the Conservative party would make this point a lot better than they've been doing till now.


Right you are, EG. Simple truths but very few have made that connection. They say genious is the knack of spotting the self-evident which previously passed unremarked. When does the evil part come in? :wink:

At this point, I don't think there's much the Conservatives (or anyone else for that matter) can do or say which will bring home these truths. Environmentalists have been in "panic mode" for decades and apparently know no other way of communicating. To make matters worse, the MSM love the emotional impact of environmental stories. If any politician or scientist dares dispute the shrilling of the environmentalists, the volume of the moaning only increases.

The simple fact is a volcano pumps out more CO2 in a single day of eruption than every internal combustion engine ever built on the planet running full-tilt for a month. Climate change is a natural process which is poorly understood at best. How long has it been since the environmentalists were predicting a new ice age?

I don't believe any would argue that reducing pollution is a bad thing but unless we're all willing to move back into caves, we will produce some pollution. Even if we reduced our polluting to nil, the third world nations and emerging economies will still be polluting.

-Mac
Cool Blue





Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 3130
Reputation: 114.9
votes: 10
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 4:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I don't believe any would argue that reducing pollution is a bad thing


Actually....

Some environmentalists believe that reducing smog and air pollution will actually make "global warming" worse.

They reason that all the particles in the air actually blocks out sunlight which is keeping the Earth from warming as much as it would otherwise.

In effect, these guys are saying that we shouldn't cut down on smog!

I believe this issue is called "global dimming".
Bleatmop





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 953
Reputation: 17.5Reputation: 17.5
votes: 10

PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 4:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cool Blue wrote:
Quote:
I don't believe any would argue that reducing pollution is a bad thing


Actually....

Some environmentalists believe that reducing smog and air pollution will actually make "global warming" worse.

They reason that all the particles in the air actually blocks out sunlight which is keeping the Earth from warming as much as it would otherwise.

In effect, these guys are saying that we shouldn't cut down on smog!

I believe this issue is called "global dimming".


Very interesting. Any sources on that?
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 4:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cool Blue wrote:
Quote:
I don't believe any would argue that reducing pollution is a bad thing


Actually....

Some environmentalists believe that reducing smog and air pollution will actually make "global warming" worse.

They reason that all the particles in the air actually blocks out sunlight which is keeping the Earth from warming as much as it would otherwise.

In effect, these guys are saying that we shouldn't cut down on smog!

I believe this issue is called "global dimming".


yes it is called global dimming..

I find the whole global warming issue to be a series of strange science. Granted, Im no scientist, but a couple things about the argument that GHGs cause this:

Where do these semi-permeable gases come from? If they cause radiation from the sun to become trapped in the atmosphere, would they not also cause much of the radiation to be deflected?

It is well documented that our magnetic shield is weakening in what appears to be a common process where the polls essentially reverse.. theoretically. The shield is the mechanism that shields us from many of the sun's harmful rays - basically what stops us from being a glowing ball of radiation. Now, with that weakening, I am curious as to the extent that plays in global warming - it would be my assumption that it must contribute...

Global trends have shown an almost continual warming/cooling of the environment over millenia. How are we to know this isn't the case now.

I subscribe to a better safe than sorry attitude, but I don't think any environmental policy should destroy economy. Any solution should be a market-driven initiative.
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 4:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradi.....mary.shtml

http://www.globalissues.org/En.....imming.asp

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci.....171591.stm

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=105 - an argument against taking it too seriously..

a little bit of google is a lot of a good thing ;)
Bleatmop





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 953
Reputation: 17.5Reputation: 17.5
votes: 10

PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 5:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sweet, thanks for the infor Biggie.
KPK





Joined: 22 Oct 2006
Posts: 527
Reputation: 3.6Reputation: 3.6Reputation: 3.6
votes: 13
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 5:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Maybe we should clone dinosaurs like in Jurassic Park...Their farts can then balance out the equation (as one former Alberta Premier once said)
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 6:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

KPK wrote:
Maybe we should clone dinosaurs like in Jurassic Park...Their farts can then balance out the equation (as one former Alberta Premier once said)


We could use them to finally end starvation in africa...

one way or another :wink: lol
cbasu





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 391
Reputation: 131.3
votes: 2

PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 10:04 am    Post subject: Why? Reply with quote

I have read all the comments, but I remain puzzled as to the "why".

Why would the Conservative government spend close to 8 months advertising and hyping the Made-in-Canada plan, and bring forward a legislation that will never get to Cmte?

Why didn't anybody consult the opposition to make sure they have the numbers (like they did with the NDP on the Accountability Act)?

If there were problems with the GHG aspects, why not bring the bill forward in two stages? For example, stage 1 could have been an anti-pollution bill (which would surely have gotten majority support), and stage 2 a separate long-term anti-GHG bill.

And finally, why did nobody anticipate (or plan for) the absolute savaging the bill received in the media, especially in the Quebec press?
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 11:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Why didn't anybody consult the opposition to make sure they have the numbers (like they did with the NDP on the Accountability Act)?


I think Janke has a detailed breakdown of the guidelines in the proposed CAA and the targerts proposed by Kennedy, Dion, Rae, Ignatieff, and Layton, and it turns out they're almost exactly the same. Beyond the typical partisan sniping, I don't think we had any reason to suspect that it wouldn't pass.

Quote:
If there were problems with the GHG aspects, why not bring the bill forward in two stages? For example, stage 1 could have been an anti-pollution bill (which would surely have gotten majority support), and stage 2 a separate long-term anti-GHG bill.

That might have been a good idea, but from what's been seen so far, apparently the only acceptable GHG legislation is legislation that accepts and applies Kyoto :shock: *barf*
KPK





Joined: 22 Oct 2006
Posts: 527
Reputation: 3.6Reputation: 3.6Reputation: 3.6
votes: 13
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So why has the Mass Media not picked up on the fact that the targets are the same as the Liberal leadership candidates.
Stephen





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 645
Reputation: 72.9
votes: 5
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

KPK wrote:
So why has the Mass Media not picked up on the fact that the targets are the same as the Liberal leadership candidates.


When the media let's you down, become the media.
KPK





Joined: 22 Oct 2006
Posts: 527
Reputation: 3.6Reputation: 3.6Reputation: 3.6
votes: 13
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In any event you would think after 8 months of trumpeting the Clean Air Act that they would at least have some innovative eye candy for the masses to swallow and keep them content. This bill does no such thing. Very little innovative thinking and not very agressive.A disappointment overall.It wiill probably cost them in the next election too bad. If it was an innovative plan that didn't meet our Kyoto targets by 2012 then you could challenge the opposition to do better. They would have to prove that our Kyoto targets could be met by 2012 with CLEAR costing, targets, timelines, technologies involved, labour requirements and job creation vs loss projections. If the opposition can't do that then Harper has an opening to attack them with - but you need a credible plan to begin with.
Cool Blue





Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 3130
Reputation: 114.9
votes: 10
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
So why has the Mass Media not picked up on the fact that the targets are the same as the Liberal leadership candidates.


Why do you think?

Its the same reason why they've been going on about this "Belinda-dog" reference for a week, yet never reported that for over 10 years the Liberals would snort like pigs everytime Deb Grey stood up to speak in the house.

Same reason why a poll showing the CPC and Libs tied in support is all over the front page, yet a poll on the same day showing the CPC with a 9% lead wasn't reported at all.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 4 of 5

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Clean Air Act - Dead on Arrival?

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB