»

[Dent]

Osu!

Canada is pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol.

Who's next?

Osu!

[ashiharakaicho]

Originally Posted by Dent

Osu! Canada is pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol. Who's next? Osu!

Well, if there is no clout to bring the main culprits to task, then why is there a need for others to abide?

[ashiharakaicho]

Canada Drops Out Of Kyoto Protocol
by Annie Urban


The worst kept secret in Canadian politics became official yesterday when the Harper government announced its withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol. In a statement made in the foyer of the House of Commons, Environment Minister Peter Kent noted that “Kyoto is not the path forward for a global solution to climate change” and indicated that “Canada will work towards a legally binding agreement to address global emissions that allows us to continue creating jobs and economic growth.”

What Would Staying in Kyoto Mean for Canada?

In his statement, Kent said that the Conservative government has “taken action since 2006 to make real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.” He repeated this several times, without providing any examples of those actions or statistics on the resulting (non existing) decrease in emissions. However, when it comes to what Canada would have to do in order to meet the targets under Kyoto, he had no problem giving specifics:

To meet the targets under Kyoto for 2012 would be the equivalent of:

Either removing every car, truck, ATV, tractor, ambulance, police car and vehicle of every kind from Canadian roads. Or, closing down the entire farming and agricultural sector and cutting heat to every home, office, hospital, factory and building in Canada.

The cost of not taking this type of radical and irresponsible action?

The loss of thousands of jobs or the transfer of $14 BILLION from Canadian taxpayers to other countries – the equivalent of $1600 from every Canadian family — with no impact on emissions or the environment.

That’s the Kyoto cost to Canadians.

Green Party leader Elizabeth May disagrees with Kent’s statement. In a Green Party media release she said: “It is simply outrageous disinformation that there is a $14 billion cost to staying in Kyoto. Staying in the Kyoto Protocol will not cost us a cent.”

The Cost of Rising Emissions

May goes on to explain that it will, in fact, cost us billions “if we do nothing to address climate change.” According to the Green Party:

The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, in its report “Paying the Price: The Economic Impacts of Climate Change for Canada”, estimates that the cost of Canada’s failure to act on climate change will range from $5 billion per year by 2020 to as high as $91 billion per year by 2050. Impacts on forests and coastal areas will be particularly felt in terms of hits to the Canadian economy. An increase in flooding, wildfires, heat waves, and poor air quality has already resulted in increased death and destruction of property. Canada’s insurance sector is seeing costs from storms and wildfire escalating rapidly.

The difference, of course, is that Conservative Party voters are likely more sympathetic when the government needs to use taxpayer dollars to respond to a flood or forest fire (especially when it is in their backyard) than they are when the government uses taxpayer dollars to invest in projects that will reduce emissions (especially if that means less Big Oil and more green energy).

Hopes of Progress Going Up in a Cloud of Emissions

Canadians who thought that a legally binding agreement such as Kyoto would force the government to take action are sorely disappointed. Not only is the government not taking action to reduce emissions (according to Associated Press, Canadian carbon emissions are up 35% since 1990, when they were targeted to be 6% lower than 1990 levels by 2012), but they are also violating Canadian law by withdrawing from Kyoto.

The Harper government promised to be “tough on crime.” Maybe there will be some room in the new jails for the environmental criminals to join the marijuana growers.

[ashiharakaicho]

Is a Treaty the Only Way to Stem Global Warming?
by David Shorr


Reading assessments of the recent Durban conference by leading climate wonks, many of them argue that the issue of a binding treaty — to eventually take the place of the Kyoto Protocol — must be viewed against a broader backdrop. In other words, the push to eventually enact global obligations for emission cuts is a fraught endeavor, and other tracks are just as important.

Which raises interesting general questions about treaties as a focus of multilateral effort and public hopes. Are binding treaties always good litmus tests of seriousness in addressing international problems? Are there cases in which the quest to codify and ratify is Quixotic, when the best is truly enemy of the good?

Treaties not ends unto themselves

Not that I have anything against treaties; some of my best advocacy has been around treaties. For some issues they’re essential — last year’s New START agreement on strategic nuclear arms, for one. It’s important, however, to remember that international accords are not ends unto themselves, but instead are means to address real-world problems. The essence of multilateral cooperation is to induce sovereign governments to take steps on behalf of the common good that they’d shirk if left completely to their own devices. It’s like the idea that no one is an island, but then, some nations actually are islands, and they’re the ones most threatened by global warming.

The Durban meeting of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) drove home the points that a) treaties are not the only way to spur this kind of virtuous dynamic, but beyond that b) they can actually backfire. The Council on Foreign Relations’ Michael Levi explained the perverse incentives in a pre-Durban Financial Times piece, looking back at the progress achieved at the last two UN climate conferences in Copenhagen and Cancun:

Countries enter binding international agreements with an eye to ensuring that they will be able to comply with their commitments. The legally binding nature of an international deal can thus deter national ambition in the first place. It is near-certain, for example, that China would not have pledged in Copenhagen to cut its emissions intensity to well below current levels had it been required to embed that in a treaty. The same is true for the absolute emissions’ cuts pledged by the US. It is similarly unlikely that India, China and others would have accepted formal international scrutiny of their emissions cutting efforts had that been made part of a system for enforcing legal obligations.

The question of committing to a timeline for reaching some sort of binding global agreement was the subject of intense diplomatic brinksmanship in Durban and almost tore the process apart, the Europeans having pressed the issue as an ultimatum. As Michael explained in a post-conference piece over at TheAtlantic.com, the resolution was a classic fudge that leaves itself open to multiple interpretations and hardly supports claims about putting the UNFCCC on a clear path to a treaty.

Looking at it another way, the conference’s success wasn’t setting a glidepath to a Kyoto follow-on agreement, but building on earlier successes and keeping the entire enterprise from disintegrating. Here’s how Joe Romm of Center for American Progress put it in a post on CAP’s Climate Progress blog:

It’s worth noting that the alternative was not a binding agreement to stabilize at 2°C ( 3.6°F) warming, but a complete collapse of the international negotiating process.

The Climate Progress team have offered a comprehensive overview of international cooperation on climate, including in other settings than the UNFCC. Perhaps the most important track within the UN process, though, is “climate financing,” funds to aid developing countries as they struggle with the challenges and consequences of global warming. This financial commitment from industrial powers like the US is a key test of their credibility and a sensitive issue for poorer nations likely to be affected by climate change. Indeed, as extreme weather intensifies, it’s inevitable that those countries will say don’t push us when we’re hot.

[ashiharakaicho]

Warning! The Future Of Our Planet Is At Risk
by Judy Molland


People in towns and cities are losing touch with the “realities of the natural world”, which is putting the future of the planet at risk, Sir David Attenborough has warned.

The veteran wildlife presenter says rapid urbanization over the past 60 years has endangered the future of planet earth, since a growing number of people do not regularly come into contact with the natural world.

Over Half The World’s Population Now Lives In Cities

Attenborough is reminding us that since at least 2005 over half of the world’s population lives in cities.

In an interview with Eureka magazine, published by the Times, he said: “We have a huge moral responsibility towards the rest of the planet. A hundred years ago people certainly had that … They were aware of the seasons and aware of what they were doing to the land and animals around them.”

(….)

“So over 50% is to some degree out of touch with the natural world and don’t even see an animal from one day to the next unless it’s a rat or a pigeon,” added the TV presenter. That means that people are getting out of touch with the realities of the natural world, of which we are in fact a part.”

Eight-Year-Olds Better Able To Identify Pokemon Characters Than Real Natural Ones

There is a lot of research to back up Attenborough’s claim. A recent study found that 8-year-old children in Britain were better able to identify artificial Pokemon characters than real, native, ones such as “oak tree,” “otter,” or “beetle.”

At the same time, the Kaiser Family Foundation reports that children between 8 and 18 spend on average about 8 hours a day indoors, staring at their electronic screens.

Realizing the urgency of this situation, a lot of activists have been working hard to re-connect children with nature; I did this myself by writing Get Out! 150 Easy Ways for Kids and Grown-Ups to Get Into Nature and Build a Greener Future, a book designed to make it easy for kids and their parents to enjoy the great outdoors.

Sir David Attenborough is stating clearly what many of us believe.

Narrator Of Frozen Planet

Atenborough has also been the narrator of Frozen Planet, a BBC program that has caused some controversy. As Paul Canning wrote here:

The show has also been the subject of criticism for the final episode, in which veteran BBC broadcaster Sir David Attenborough examines the impact of climate change in the Arctic and Antarctic. That episode includes dramatic footage of the break-up of the Wilkins ice shelf on the Antarctic peninsula but mostly describes what is happening and barely touches on its anthropogenic cause. It was reported that this episode would not be broadcast in the US because of supposed controversy over climate change, which turned out to be incorrect.

Hooray for David Attenborough for refusing to compromise his beliefs, and for warning of the danger of a human population cut off from its natural environment.

[FredInChina]

New Study Links Current Events to Climate Change

In a landmark 1988 study, Hansen predicted that if greenhouse gas emissions continue, which they have, Washington, D.C., would have about nine days each year of 95 degrees or warmer in the decade of the 2010s. So far this year, with about four more weeks of summer, the city has had 23 days with 95 degrees or hotter temperatures.

Hansen says now he underestimated how bad things would get.

Mother nature at work to correct Human excess and stupidity...


Osu!

[ashiharakaicho]

Originally Posted by FredInChina

Mother nature at work to correct Human excess and stupidity... Osu!

Ouch, I guess someone at some stage or the other will have to sit and and take note and perhaps, maybe perhaps will start doing something about it.

[FredInChina]

EXTREME HEAT WAVES BECOMING THE NORM

An increase in excessively hot summers over the last 30 years is too extreme to be considered a result of chance, pointing a finger at global warming as the underlying cause.

Can you imagine anything more idiotic than infinite growth in a finite universe?


Osu!

[sandman]

Originally Posted by FredInChina

Can you imagine anything more idiotic than infinite growth in a finite universe?


Osu!

I'm sorry, what was the question?

[FredInChina]

Hahaha, drill the baby, drill..........
MacCain's nightmare forever!


Osu!

[ashiharakaicho]

Saving the Planet: We’re All in This Together

by Tara Holmes
August 27, 2012

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/saving-t...#ixzz24qSRMVuJ

[FredInChina]

Originally Posted by ashiharakaicho

Saving the Planet (...)

hehehe, the planet will be fine... although it may not provide an appropriate environment to many humans for much longer...


Osu!

[tmd]

That's the real point Fred isn't it - its not about planetary change being a problem for the planet but for us to keep up with the rate of change. Change is a planetary constant - us speeding stuff up, or running out of stuff we like to burn well that's just our own tuff luck.

The solution is not to stop progress it is to make progress in the areas that are relative to solving the problem.

[ashiharakaicho]

Originally Posted by tmd

The solution is not to stop progress it is to make progress in the areas that are relative to solving the problem.

Would you not say that is the area that people need to push for, because it is only us that can make the difference in aiding the process ...

[tmd]

In general people don't want to progress, they want exactly the same or more but with less guilt - in short they want the problem solved for them. Just look at the average MPG of cars and trucks - the only way to get people to use less fuel is to make it more expensive, the car companies then do their bit and make more economical vehicles (not that everyone chooses these) but this illustrates that people, in general don't want to do the right thing, they want FREEDOM! Whatever that means, to do as they please, some even CHOOSE to do the right thing, but these are very few in number.

There are too many people eating too much food and using too many resources and asking them nicely to cut back or stop wasting what we have or use greener alternatives doesn't work on the masses, only the select few with enough cash to make hard, long term choices - For the rest it is left to the whip of politicians to provide the solution and guidance, but when they do and the advise is to change people always see mismanagement and vested interest or some other hidden, X Files type agenda, rather than just except that change is needed and if they do nothing the politicians will make the call, and it will probably be the wrong one as they only live in a 4 year cycle world. Shame really.

[ashiharakaicho]

Originally Posted by tmd

In general people don't want to progress, they want exactly the same or more but with less guilt - in short they want the problem solved for them.

Sigh, that is a problem - we don't want to take onus for our own responsibilities, preferring to pass the buck. I know so many people.

The same thing in karate politics - I am constantly told to be a politician and make allowances, but how can I when I follow and adhere to my principles.

Is it that the world it not concerned with following their own principles - is it moral decay?

[FredInChina]

Originally Posted by tmd

(...) the politicians will make the call, and it will probably be the wrong one as they only live in a 4 year cycle world. Shame really.

There is really nothing that we don't know already that is stopping us from making a 10,000 years plan for the survival of all humans at a higher standard of living than ever before.

Archeologists and anthropologists of lost civilizations will really scratch their heads on that one in the future!


Osu!

[tmd]

I know Fred, all the answers are available just not the will

[FredInChina]

To older farts, about this green thing...

Being Green

Checking out at the store, the young cashier suggested to the older woman, that she should bring her own grocery bags because plastic bags weren't good for the environment.

The woman apologized and explained, "We didn't have

this green thing back in my earlier days."

The young clerk responded, "That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations."

She was right -- our generation didn't have the green thing in its day.

Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were truely recycled.

But we didn't have the green thing back in our day.

Grocery stores bagged our groceries in brown paper bags, that we reused for numerous things, most memorable besides household garbage bags, was the use of brown paper bags as book covers for our schoolbooks. This was to ensure that public property, (the books provided for our use by the school) was not defaced by our scribblings. Then we were able to personalize our books on the brown paper bags.

But too bad we didn't do the green thing back then.

We walked up stairs, because we didn't have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks.

But she was right. We didn't have the green thing in our day.

Back then, we washed the baby's diapers because we didn't have the throwaway kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy-gobbling machine burning up 220 volts -- wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing.

But that young lady is right; we didn't have the green thing back in our day.

Back then, we had one TV, or radio, in the house -- not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana . In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us. When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap. Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity.

But she's right; we didn't have the green thing back then.

We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull.

But we didn't have the green thing back then.

Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service. We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 23,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest burger joint.

But isn't it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn't have the green thing back then?

Please forward this on to another selfish old person who needs a lesson in conservation from a smartass young person.

We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off.

Osu!

[ashiharakaicho]

Osu,

Please see this ...

Sweden is So Green It Has to Import Garbage

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/sweden-i...#ixzz27r3fwU84