Think ya got a broken link SL.

PS – this is the same comment, I just clicked “edit” and replaced it with this. Above comment from me was intended for this thread.

You can start here…http://www.nasa.gov/

Then maybe drop by here…http://www.ipcc.ch/

Shoot through here for a little taste of home…http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=FD9B0E51-1

Even BUSH couldn’t fully stop these guys..http://www.epa.gov/

For an economic breakdown, these guys do pretty good…http://www.oecd.org/home/0,2987,en_2649_201185_1_1_1_1_1,00.html

Maybe you want to know about Climate Change and health?…http://www.who.int/en/

For a nice little rundown, check this out…http://search.cbc.ca/search?ie=UTF-8&site=CBC&output=xml_no_dtd&client=CBC&lr=&getfields=description&proxystylesheet=CBC&oe=UTF-8&searchWeb=cbc&q=Climate+Change

As for yer 2nd question, you know as well as I do they didn’t do much. That can’t be an excuse to continue doing nothing.

Maybe Stephan Dion can answer my perfectly legitimate questions. You see, I would like to make an educated vote. I don’t make partisan votes. If a little bit of hardship now results in alternate clean energy for generations to come, then I’m all for it.

I keep hearing about the science is settled, and that everyone agrees, and that global warming is happening and that we need to do something drastic now to save the planet. But then I see news articles and reports that say global warming has been put on hold for a decade, and that actual temperatures are not agreeing with this whole warming thing. And then the term Global Warming becomes Climate Change and when I try to question anyone that I know about this or don’t even know, I get ridiculed and called names, instead of a discussion that leads to answers. So I look around the net some more, and dig, and read and dig and read and notice things like the Kyoto Accord, and read all of that shit, especially the things about the consensus involved with 90% of Nobel Prize winning scientists agree and why phase one scientific peer review comments were not made available until just recently and see things like Al Gore’s movie/slideshow made him over 300 million dollars, and that he owns a carbon trading company and it makes me want to find out more. But I keep coming up against insults or blank stares when I ask legitimate questions about the science involved.

I’ve educated myself as much as a layman can, and realize that when I try to discuss the issue, nobody seems to know shit about the simple questions that I asked in my previous comment. So, I thought since you are so very sold on the idea of carbon credits over cap and trade, that you might also have some insight as to the climate science involved in determining why we are thinking of doing this in the first place. Instead, I get partisan (insulting?) answers to legitimate questions.

How is such a thing as a climate change tax going to be sold to the average person if these are the responses given to the average person?

But since you don’t know, maybe you can put me in touch with the “huge majority of scientist that study these things” and perhaps some official scientific papers subject to peer review as opposed to newspaper and television reports?

And since you seem to like partisan politics, maybe you can tell me after signing the Kyoto accord, what our government did to start preparing to meet it’s deadlines.

Even Stephen Harper has come around. Where have you been?

Since I’m sure you know the answers to all the questions you put forth, I assume you claim to know better than the (huge) majority of scientists who study these things?

Originally Posted By ThrobbinBingo.

You loose the farmers dog again?

What are all the other Green House Gasses? What percentage of total GHG do each of those gasses make up? What percentage of the total GHG’s is carbon? What percent of the Carbon in the atmosphere is anthropogenic?

Now for some tougher ones; What is the life cycle of carbon in the atmosphere? How much carbon is absorbed by oceans and orgainic life? How much carbon is produced by oceans and organic life? Is there a consensus amongst scientists about these carbon life cycle questions?

Here’s a real easy one;

How many times have apparent scientific consensus throughout history proven to be wrong?

I agree that humanity needs to wean ourselves from fossil fuels. Pollution is not a good thing. In the big picture, fossil fuels are (hopefully) but a stepping stone in mankind’s saga. I just don’t think that putting a tax on everything to increase social program spending is going to change the amount of carbon that we put into the atmosphere. It’s just going to make it more expensive. Carbon credits are just going to become the cost of doing business. Magic technology is not going to appear because of higher prices or tax breaks. Technology will benefit from direct spending on pure science, not somebody trading credits. Go and look at Carbonzero’s website and tell me what impact other than skimming a bunch of money off the top for funding an existing windmill farm that should be generating income in order to work, not requiring handouts from people who drive their cars or take vacations in jets. If you want to seriously do something about it, then do something serious about it, not some scheme fueled by the sky is falling doomsday scenarios.

[quote]Unless you take the position that climate change is good for the environment, [/quote]

Climate change IS the environment. It’s been changing since the planet started spinning.

My point is that carbon credits do nothing to help the environment.

Anthropogenic climate change is primarily driven by increasing concentrations of GHG in the atmosphere. Unless you take the position that climate change is good for the environment, it seems to me that reducing our net CO2 contribution is good for the environment. Perhaps you’re just trying to conflate two different issues.

… carbon trading scheme that does NOTHING to reduce carbon emissions.

Are you being deliberately dim?

blindly jumping on the Carbon Tax band wagon, using sarcastic doublespeak to insinuate that an efficacy of the free market cannot exist with the confines of regulation.

Actually, I prefer a carbon tax to a cap and trade system ( the two major mechanisms available to government ) precisely because it does a better job, IMO, of utilizing market mechanisms and consumer choice to effect change.

My point is that carbon credits do nothing to help the environment. What does help the environment is things that the current government is doing, such as telling manufacturers that some of the products that they use are harmful to the environment, and that there are Green alternatives that ALREADY EXIST.

Now, I also suggested is that at some point, long after industry has been told by government that these products that they are using are harmful to the environment, and that there are green alternative that ALREADY EXIST, regulation will be introduced in order to PROTECT the ENVIRONMENT.

If you want to see how the free market works, take your two hundred bucks, and invest in one of these companies (THAT ALREADY EXIST), and you will be making money and saving the environment. Or, you can give your two hundred and a bunch more or your spare money to a carbon trading scheme that does NOTHING to reduce carbon emissions.

You, KevinG, are the partisan one here by blindly jumping on the Carbon Tax band wagon, using sarcastic doublespeak to insinuate that an efficacy of the free market cannot exist with the confines of regulation.

Me being partisan would be pointing out that Dion did nothing of this sort when he was environment minister for how many years? Or pointing out that he doesn’t even know what car pooling is, or that his well thought out plan relies on the magical development of non existing technology. Or that instead of just calling it “a Tax on Everything Plan” he stole someone’s trademarked name to hide it, and that if you dug deep enough, he could be heavily invested in the carbon trading industry. That’s could be considered partisan. Or maybe it’s just pointing out that the guy and his plan is an idiot. Maybe it’s both.

Unless I’m mistaken, vonrock just used compulsory industry regulation as an argument to demonstrate the efficacy of the free market. Anyway, I’ve got a couple hundred bucks spare so I’ll take the wager.

Environmentally friendly is NOT putting millions and millions of mercury fucking filled light bulbs into landfills. Al fucking Gore could not get into the big oil club, so he started a big fucking carbon offset club of his own. It’s has nothing to do with being environmentally fucking friendly. It’s a way to make a shit load of fucking money for nothing.

You want to see someone who is doing something environmentally fucking friendly? Look no further than your current Prime Minister. He declared a fuck load of fucking bad fucking shit used in the fucking manufacturing industry as bad fucking shit. I’d bet my fucking years wage (not a fucking lot, but all I fucking have) that next year he fucking bans those bad fucking products, all of which have fucking GREEN alternatives. I’d also bet my fucking years fucking salary that any fucking one who gives a fucking shit, and has some fucking common sense would be fucking investing their god damn fucking money into these not so fucking new technologies.

That, my fucking bickering fucking friends and fellow fucking Canadians, is what’s called the fucking FREE market fucking working, with just a little smart fucking governance.

This post has been brought to you by the letter F. You know what y’all can do with it.

I’m with you guys on this one. Carbon off-setting is just another way for people with money to do things we shouldn’t be doing and absolve their conscience in the process.

I disagree.

I think if SL wants to fly to the Artic a half dozen times a year because it’s important to him, he should be able to. However, if he is as concerned about climate change in the Artic as I think he is based on his postings here, it’s likely he’ll want to reduce or eliminate the impact of that travel. He could make an investment that reduces CO2 output somewhere else. Any investment is good but he could invest enough to completely offset the CO2 resulting from his travel.

Obviously, we can’t offset our way out of our current troubles but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a legitimate tool in the transition to a more carbon constrained lifestyle and economy. Aside from the obvious benfits of reducing the net amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, it helps makes developing technologies economically viable and accelerates the development of alternate technologies that we will need.

But I wasn’t talking about the offset – I was talking about the bigger picture, as in the Environmental plans each party offers. Already knowing you aren’t a fan of the Green Shift, I don’t expect you to agree with it. However, the Green Shift, if implemented in the event of a Liberal victory, would presumably reduce the total GHG output of the country by several orders of magnitude more than the emissions emitted over the course of the campaign.

Using the Liberals aviation-related GHG emissions to criticize them for being environmentally unfriendly is roughly the equivalent of criticizing Greenpeace staff for the homes they live in. Those homes were built on land that was one home to wildlife – and are probably bigger than is absolutely necessary for a person to live in. But this criticism overlooks the work that they actually want to do.

It wasn’t the best idea to choose a plane that emits so much more GHG’s than the other guys, but it’s making a mountain out of a molehill for the sake of political commentary.