• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, Toronto's largest and longest running online community. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register on the forum. You can register with your facebook ID or with an email address. Join us!

Canada Voted worst in the world !

vinder

TRIBE Member
silver1 said:
Opportunity cost.

For every extra measure of effort used to battle CO2 emissions is a measure of effort taken away from battling other pollutants.
this is so balls i don't even know where to start.

many sustainability programs (government sanctioned and corporate) are NOT limited to reducing C02 emissions.

That being said, targeting C02 emissions has a huge trickle down effect on many industries:
- manufacturing
- transportation
- agriculture
- pulp and paper
...

some of you are just huge fucking retards with an extremely narrow scope of what reducing C02 emissions means.
 

~atp~

TRIBE Member
But Vinder, it's not really "balls". No one is claiming that sustainability programmes are limited to CO2 emissions reduction. What's being stated is that focusing on CO2 reductions as a means to achieve sustainability is not efficient and potentially harmful. CO2 emissions reduction can indeed "trickle down", but why not target those industries more directly? We already have programmes designed to tackle sustainability in a very direct way, yet we divert resources to the "global warming" pandemic without considering its value holistically.

I'm not sure why you feel that some of us are "huge fucking retards", but I'm sure it isn't helping anyone reconcile these opposing perspectives.
 

Onthereals

TRIBE Member
Wont the upcoming recession/depression reduce some of the emissions? And if the future population graphs are correct, aren't a bunch of people going to die because of general ecological degradation? That will reduce some of the emissions. There really isn't much time left to argue, action on these ecological problems was supposed to happen a long time ago. So I guess prepare yourself for future social strife might be your best bet?

Ha I also laugh at the thought of believing Canada will end up being the winner in the upcoming resource depleting/climate-changing world order. We will get invaded constantly with our tons of resources. Or be forcefully merged with the US. Lets celebrate, bitches!
 

dr. claw

Member
The BBC has a short reference on typical arguments against climate change and why they feel they are not valid (for the most part). I thought this might be interesting for people on both sides of the global warming debate to read and assess.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm

ps- apologies if this has been posted already.

pps- I tried to cut and paste the text of the article but it ended up kind of wonky and I was too lazy to fix it
 

AdRiaN

TRIBE Member
Again, some of you people speak as though Canada is doing nothing on energy sustainability or toxic pollution, and could not possibly accomplish anything without Kyoto.

Canada has made major progress over the past thirty years in controlling air pollutants that cause smog and acid rain. We have made gains in almost every environmental indicator ... except carbon dioxide emissions.

We do not need Europeans telling us how to run our affairs and laughing all the way to the bank. We can continue to make investments in sustainable energy, biodiversity, air quality and water quality without committing to arbitrary targets for carbon dioxide emissions thankyouverymuch.

Let's continue building wind farms, changing our lightbulbs and finding more efficient manufacturing processes. These are positive developments in this country and it makes little sense to divert a portion of the funds available for these initiatives to buying credits from Europeans.
 

vinder

TRIBE Member
~atp~ said:
But Vinder, it's not really "balls". No one is claiming that sustainability programmes are limited to CO2 emissions reduction. What's being stated is that focusing on CO2 reductions as a means to achieve sustainability is not efficient and potentially harmful. CO2 emissions reduction can indeed "trickle down", but why not target those industries more directly? We already have programmes designed to tackle sustainability in a very direct way, yet we divert resources to the "global warming" pandemic without considering its value holistically.

I'm not sure why you feel that some of us are "huge fucking retards", but I'm sure it isn't helping anyone reconcile these opposing perspectives.
i disagree that whatever plan they come up with will focus solely on CO2 emissions. and those other industries are already being targeted or are taking steps themselves to clean up their act. often having cleaner manufacturing/refining/whatever processes = more efficient processes = profit. it's in everyone's best interest for them to make the necessary improvements. granted, cleaner does not always equal more efficient, and there will be industries that will fight it. but no solution with such a large scope can possibly achieve cleaner production in every industry. it's an 80/20 thing.

i also disagree that resources will be diverted from current sustainability initiatives to combat C02 emissions. many times those initiatives are intertwined and are upstream of C02 initiatives. as a general example, recycling reduces consumption of raw materials, and reduces emissions by not having to process aluminum into commercial grade materials. it also just happens to have the byproduct of reducing energy consumption, and C02 emissions. there are probably countless examples that illustrate this point.

i'm playing the huge retard card because i'm frustrated that people seem to be so entrenched in their positions without considering the big picture. something like kyoto or the proposed plans coming out of bali can be a good thing.

i agree not having india or china isn't ideal, and makes it unfair to those nations that would participate. this would surely cause short term pain. but the long term benefits of tackling these problems now is an excellent business strategy. early adopters of sustainable strategy will only become that much stronger in the future as the laggards have to struggle to comply with mandated standards, instead of using this push today as an opportunity to get a head start.
 

~atp~

TRIBE Member
Perhaps I've misunderstood, but you seem to be a) contradicting yourself and b) ignoring my argument. As follows:

vinder said:
i disagree that whatever plan they come up with will focus solely on CO2 emissions.
I never said that. I said that focusing on CO2 is a diversion away from more useful sustainability programmes.

vinder said:
and those other industries are already being targeted or are taking steps themselves to clean up their act. often having cleaner manufacturing/refining/whatever processes = more efficient processes = profit. it's in everyone's best interest for them to make the necessary improvements. granted, cleaner does not always equal more efficient, and there will be industries that will fight it. but no solution with such a large scope can possibly achieve cleaner production in every industry. it's an 80/20 thing.
Great, if we're talking about sustainability, then I agree. Pipelining this through Kyoto targets (or other CO2 reduction targets, carbon trading, etc) is -- as I've stated -- an inefficient exercise.

vinder said:
i also disagree that resources will be diverted from current sustainability initiatives to combat C02 emissions.
I'll provide some examples, however:

vinder said:
many times those initiatives are intertwined and are upstream of C02 initiatives.
Yeah, obviously. Ecological sustainability programmes will often yield CO2 emission reductions (or increases), but so what? The point is that CO2 emissions aren't even a pollutant, why focus our energy on its measurement when we could be measuring very well-known things such as SO2 and particulate density in urban environments...a far more dangerous pollutant.

vinder said:
as a general example, recycling reduces consumption of raw materials, and reduces emissions by not having to process aluminum into commercial grade materials. it also just happens to have the byproduct of reducing energy consumption, and C02 emissions.
Yup, ok.

vinder said:
there are probably countless examples that illustrate this point.
Yup, there are. But you still forget that CO2 is not the end-goal. You say (below) that people forget the big picture, but I feel like you might be. More on that below...

vinder said:
i'm playing the huge retard card because i'm frustrated that people seem to be so entrenched in their positions without considering the big picture. something like kyoto or the proposed plans coming out of bali can be a good thing.
Well in my opinion, Kyoto is extremely narrowly-focused. It does not account for the big picture? You want the big picture? Here, try this:

Asking people to respond by changing their consumer habits is asking people to turn their attention to their consumer habits. This contributes to siphoning their vision onto their lifestyle choices and removes psychological focus from the person's political dimension. I argue that it is counter productive to stress people's individual choices and that we must find ways to make more political and social justice activists and organizers. I don't care that you emit more CO2 by breathing when you chose a more active lifestyle but I appreciate that you are trying to be the most effective political activist possible and I honour the risk you must take in being an effective social justice activist.

Economic, human, and animal justice brings economic sustainability which in turn is always based on renewable practices. Recognizing the basic rights of native people automatically moderates resource extraction and preserves natural habitats. Not permitting imperialist wars and interventions automatically quenches nation-scale exploitation. True democratic control over monetary policy goes a long way in removing debt-based extortion.



We must not substitute the effect for the cause. All such substitutions can only weaken activism. Presently, power designs and controls the legislative apparatus, just as it constructs the mainstream mental environment. Only justice can give environmental sustainability and only resistance-imposed increased democratic control of land, resources, and the economy can give increased justice. These are lessons of history that no amount of atmospheric science can change.


Of course present imperialism and corporate globalization are based on oil and the associated cheap transportation. But asking governments and corporations to sign onto carbon footprint reduction schemes and to trade carbon credits is not going to change that.
And an interesting window into part of climate history from a corporo-political persepective: http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2007/05/dgr-in-my-article-entitled-global.html

vinder said:
early adopters of sustainable strategy will only become that much stronger in the future as the laggards have to struggle to comply with mandated standards, instead of using this push today as an opportunity to get a head start.
Again, I think this is a narrow perspective and doesn't take in the "big picture". We're not taking into consideration the causes for ecological abuse and the mechanisms of power that determine how we live our lives. The CO2 scare is likely destined for failure, just as many other environmental movements have historically faltered. Its popularization was spearheaded politically, and scientifically is still in its infancy. Why can't we popularize global efforts that encourage individual responsibility and the establishment of sustainability programmes? We've chosen CO2 emissions as the (carbon) poster-child for sustainability but signing on will not help us directly confront and repair what is already known to be broken.
 

vinder

TRIBE Member
alright, maybe what i'm saying is not clear then. i agree with you, C02 emissions alone are not a complete solution. i can only hope that it's part of the strategy that comes out of bali, that includes other sustainability initiatives targeted at industry, as they are large sources of pollution that are easier to go after because of their visibility. i also still believe that going after C02 emissions can have significant benefits due to trickle down effects as I've described before, and even if that's all that comes out of it's not a bad thing.

i also think your statement on blaming power structures for our existing state is counterproductive. you cannot hope for bali to have the power to effect the change you describe, that is not it's mandate. working within the political and power structures, i feel, is the best way to effect change in such a short time span (let's say within our lifetimes). the change you're suggesting is something that i think can be started with bali, along with generating more awareness and education on sustainability issues (and of course continued scientific studies to truly determine whether the problems we are going after are the correct ones, to your point). to say that it's fruitless - and that's what your tone seems to imply - to even go this route is what i feel is narrow.

p.s. 4 iraqi babies were killed to generate the power it took to run my laptop to write this post
 
Last edited:

~atp~

TRIBE Member
I don't entirely disagree with you, and I definitely understand your perspective. I do still disagree with you in regard to the results of "going after CO2 emissions", I truly believe the product will be disappointment and conflict. In so far as power structures and counterproductivity, well, I feel that it is the underpinning of the entire problem...it is the cause. And the causes need to be addressed first, despite Bali's efforts. I think Bali and the consequences thereof will only distract us, if not feed the cause. But again, that's just my opinion and substantiating this argument is going to take a lot more than what Tribe's audience has the patience for.


Also, my laptop runs on the blood of aborted hippies. Hence my disdain for all of you...you could've been feeding my laptop's insatiable appetite.
 

silver1

TRIBE Member
vinder said:
this is so balls i don't even know where to start.

many sustainability programs (government sanctioned and corporate) are NOT limited to reducing C02 emissions.

That being said, targeting C02 emissions has a huge trickle down effect on many industries:
- manufacturing
- transportation
- agriculture
- pulp and paper
...

some of you are just huge fucking retards with an extremely narrow scope of what reducing C02 emissions means.
Of course sustainability programs are not only limited to reduction of CO2 emissions.

But if the primary focus of them is towards CO2 reduction and we look towards residual trickle down within the industry to help with known pollutants that undeniably harm everyone, then we are wasting opportunities to directly battle other more destructive environmental problems.

From an efforts standpoint increased focus on CO2 reduction, especially in terms of meeting the arbitrary targets of the Kyoto protocol, means a decreased focus towards pollutant reduction.
 

silver1

TRIBE Member
And for everyone with hard-ons for the wonderful environmental trickle down effects that primarily focusing on CO2 reduction will have, I have some wonderful trickle down economic plans that cutting corporate taxes have on benefiting the poor instead of say directly spending money on building affordable housing and whatnot.
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
China Grabs West’s Smoke-Spewing Factories
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/21/world/asia/21transfer.html?_r=1&ex=1355893200&en=9a9c8fc3f0293237&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin



HANDAN, China — When residents of this northern Chinese city hang their clothes out to dry, the black fallout from nearby Handan Iron and Steel often sends them back to the wash.

Half a world away, neighbors of ThyssenKrupp’s former steel mill in the Ruhr Valley of Germany once had a similar problem. The white shirts men wore to church on Sundays turned gray by the time they got home.

These two steel towns have an unusual kinship, spanning 5,000 miles and a decade of economic upheaval. They have shared the same hulking blast furnace, dismantled and shipped piece by piece from Germany’s old industrial heartland to Hebei Province, China’s new Ruhr Valley.

The transfer, one of dozens since the late 1990s, contributed to a burst in China’s steel production, which now exceeds that of Germany, Japan and the United States combined. It left Germany with lost jobs and a bad case of postindustrial angst.

But steel mills spewing particulates into the air and sucking electricity from China’s coal-fired power plants account for a big chunk of the country’s surging emissions of sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide. Germany, in contrast, has cleaned its skies and is now leading the fight against global warming.

In its rush to re-create the industrial revolution that made the West rich, China has absorbed most of the major industries that once made the West dirty. Spurred by strong state support, Chinese companies have become the dominant makers of steel, coke, aluminum, cement, chemicals, leather, paper and other goods that faced high costs, including tougher environmental rules, in other parts of the world. China has become the world’s factory, but also its smokestack.

This mass shift of polluting industries has blighted China’s economic rise. Double-digit growth rates have done less to improve people’s lives when the damages to the air, land, water and human health are considered, some economists say. Outmoded production equipment will have to be replaced or retrofitted at high cost if the country intends to reduce pollution.

.....



---------------------------------------------

The link I provided at the beginning gives you 5 and a half more pages its worthy of the read.

Its part of my argument that Europe didn't clean anything they are still polluting just as much, they are just doing it elsewhere.
 

Karim

TRIBE Member
Tribe, what happened?? A few years ago you were ALL left leaning hippies, now, I'm surprised at how many responses have a neocon undertone!
 

chooch

TRIBE Member
Karim said:
Tribe, what happened?? A few years ago you were ALL left leaning hippies, now, I'm surprised at how many responses have a neocon undertone!
what happened is ideals are great when you don't own property, have a car, a kid, a hubby. now most of tribe have that stuff and great ideals will conflict when trying to keep up with the joneses...hahahahah!
 

fuzzy

TRIBE Member
Puma said:
Why should Canada shoot it self in the foot at the cost of its own economy when the biggest polluters like China, India and the US are not even on board.
Thats like saying why should we spend money on health care when other countries are not...
We could be spending more on development of our resources and then national defence
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
chooch said:
what happened is ideals are great when you don't own property, have a car, a kid, a hubby. now most of tribe have that stuff and great ideals will conflict when trying to keep up with the joneses...hahahahah!


A big part of me totally agrees with you!!!
 

Puma

TRIBE Member
fuzzy said:
Thats like saying why should we spend money on health care when other countries are not...
We could be spending more on development of our resources and then national defense
It is not the same thing at all. Other countries don't routinely send their sick to use our health care. Pollution doesn't stop at the border.
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
fuzzy said:
Thats like saying why should we spend money on health care when other countries are not...
We could be spending more on development of our resources and then national defence

Strong enough argument, however there are a few issues at play. I posted a link a few posts and days ago for a series done by the new york times. The specific example I posted related to a steal plant moving from germany to china. If we are going to just move all of our dirty industries outside of the emissions regulations we aren't gaining anything in fact we are basically tossing away both the industry and the regulations around it.

By moving a nasty factory to china or india we are not reducing pollution in fact because companies are no longer monitored they increase pollution upon re-opening. Generally we also add significant pollution in transporting these products to destination markets with a net toll being a significant increase in pollution.

We have seen a substantial increase in CO2 emissions in Canada, however when compared to GDP/capita we have seen a reduction. What this means is that although we are producing more net gas we are producing less per person and less per unit of economic activity. This is a measure of efficency which is key to the argument, if I can produce a car in Canada at 1000 units of CO2 production and the same car in China costs 2000 units of CO2 production its better for everyone to build the thing in Canada.

each toyota prius that is sold requires a battery, the battery requires nickel and that nickel comes from Sudbury.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=417227&in_page_id=1770

in this case each bit of CO2 saved by driving a Prius in California is nothing but an increase in Suburry and elsewhere in the world. Thus we have a decrease in pollution in LA while we have an increase in Southern Ontario.

If we aren't looking at this with the whole picture in mind the whole thing becomes nothing but a shell game and thats exactly what Kyoto has done so far.
 
Top