http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/
They are still taking memberships CK
They are still taking memberships CK
Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands
- Thread starter Foxsea
- Start date
- Status
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/02/pat-michaels-climate-skeptic
Blue Marble
→ Climate Change
Most Credible Climate Skeptic Not So Credible After All
—By Kate Sheppard
| Fri Feb. 26, 2010 7:00 AM EST
Patrick Michaels has more credibility than your average climate skeptic. Unlike some of the kookier characters that populate the small world of climate denialists—like Lord Christopher Monckton, a sometime adviser to Margaret Thatcher who claims that "We are a carbon-starved planet," or H. Leighton Steward, a retired oil executive and author of a best-selling diet book who argues that carbon dioxide is "green"—Michaels is actually a bona fide climate scientist. As such, he's often quoted by reporters as a reasonable expert who argues that global warming has been overhyped. But what Michaels doesn't mention in his frequent media appearances is his history of receiving money from big polluters.
Michaels, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, has some impressive-sounding credentials. He has a PhD in ecological climatology and is a senior fellow in the School of Public Policy at George Mason University. He's a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and a former program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society. He regularly touts his work as a contributing author and reviewer of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports. (Almost every climate scientist in the world has at some point contributed to or reviewed an IPCC study.) Unlike climate skeptics who implausibly claim that there's no such thing as global warming, Michaels accepts that it's happening, but downplays the severity of the problem and the role that human activity plays in the phenomenon.
With climate science increasingly under siege, Michaels has been getting plenty of airtime lately. Following reports of errors and sloppy research procedures with the reports produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Michaels featured prominently in a CBS News report last month, claiming that there is "no doubt the trust in the UN panel has been undermined." And after hacked emails revealed that a group of climate scientists had tried to block skeptical views from academic papers and journals, Michaels appeared on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 to debate Bill Nye (the "Science Guy"). Michaels said he was "troubled" that scientists at the heart of the controversy might have tried "to hide things" from Freedom of Information Act requests. He was also featured prominently in a New York Times piece calling the controversy "a mushroom cloud" for climate science, and appeared several times in the Wall Street Journal complaining that scientists said mean things about him in the emails. (It's worth emphasizing that while the incident revealed scientists behaving unprofessionally, nothing in the emails undermined the underlying science of climate change.)
But Michaels' credibility on climate is called into question by a trove of documents from a 2007 court case that attracted almost no scrutiny at the time. Those documents show that Michaels has financial ties to big energy interests—ties that he's worked hard to keep secret. Here's the back story:
Several years ago, the auto industry launched a salvo of lawsuits challenging the tougher vehicle emissions standards that had been introduced in many states. In 2007, Michaels was scheduled to appear as an expert witness on behalf of a challenge by Green Mountain Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge and the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers to emissions standards in Vermont. The auto industry's lawyers planned to put Michaels on the stand as an expert witness who would question the scientific finding that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet. But it soon became clear that lawyers defending Vermont's law were going to ask Michaels about the clients of his "advocacy science consulting firm," New Hope Environmental Services.
Michaels had never made a list of his clients public, and he refused to do so now, arguing that it was a confidential matter. The judge disagreed, and ruled that Michaels' clients were a "viable area of cross examination." "I understand that maybe it's a little embarrassing," said Judge William K. Sessions III. "[But] it's not highly confidential information."
In a rare move, the auto dealers pulled Michaels off their witness list. In an affidavit [PDF], Michaels stated that New Hope was his primary source of income, and being forced to reveal its clients would "imperil my livelihood." He emphasized that the "sole reason" he did not testify was "concern that my trial testimony would result in the loss of confidentiality for the New Hope information."
The auto lawyers were "desperate to shield who Pat Michaels makes his money from," David Bookbinder, chief climate counsel for the Sierra Club and one of the lawyers for the state in the case. "It's beyond unrealistic," said Bookbinder. "It's like saying in a speeding case that you're not able to ask about how fast someone was going."
As it turned out, Michaels' attempt to keep his client list secret wasn't entirely successful. The court documents reveal that lawyers for the defense saw records revealing that Michaels had received money from at least one very large energy company.
In addition, Greenpeace recently obtained an older copy of Michaels' curriculum vitae via a Freedom of Information Act request that shows that the Western Fuels Association, a coal and fuel-transportation business group, gave him a $63,000 grant in the early 1990s for "research on global climatic change." He also received $25,000 from the Edison Electric Institute, an association of electric utilities, from 1992-95 for "literature review of climate change and updates." And a 2006 leaked industry memo revealed that he received $100,000 in funding from the Intermountain Rural Electric Association to fund climate denial campaigning around the time of the release of An Inconvenient Truth. Reporter Ross Gelbspan wrote in his 1998 book The Heat is On, one of the earliest works documenting industry funding for climate change skepticism, that Michaels also received $49,000 came from the German Coal Mining Association and $40,000 from the western mining company Cyprus Minerals.
In the Vermont case, the auto dealers eventually replaced Michaels with John Christy, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville who believes that concerns about global warming might be overstated. However, Christy proved to be a far less agressive defender of that view than Michaels. According to court transcripts, Christy eventually admitted on the stand, "The increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is real. It is due primarily to the burning of fossil fuels." Vermont went on to win the case and eventually the Environmental Protection Agency not only granted states the right to set those higher emissions standards but adopted the stricter rules nationwide.
Michaels is still frequently called on as an expert source by mainstream media outlets. Even as he's bashed the IPCC for its lack of transparency, he refuses to come clean about the sources of his funding. It turns out the climate skeptics' most credible expert isn't so credible after all.
Blue Marble
→ Climate Change
Most Credible Climate Skeptic Not So Credible After All
—By Kate Sheppard
| Fri Feb. 26, 2010 7:00 AM EST
Patrick Michaels has more credibility than your average climate skeptic. Unlike some of the kookier characters that populate the small world of climate denialists—like Lord Christopher Monckton, a sometime adviser to Margaret Thatcher who claims that "We are a carbon-starved planet," or H. Leighton Steward, a retired oil executive and author of a best-selling diet book who argues that carbon dioxide is "green"—Michaels is actually a bona fide climate scientist. As such, he's often quoted by reporters as a reasonable expert who argues that global warming has been overhyped. But what Michaels doesn't mention in his frequent media appearances is his history of receiving money from big polluters.
Michaels, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, has some impressive-sounding credentials. He has a PhD in ecological climatology and is a senior fellow in the School of Public Policy at George Mason University. He's a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and a former program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society. He regularly touts his work as a contributing author and reviewer of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports. (Almost every climate scientist in the world has at some point contributed to or reviewed an IPCC study.) Unlike climate skeptics who implausibly claim that there's no such thing as global warming, Michaels accepts that it's happening, but downplays the severity of the problem and the role that human activity plays in the phenomenon.
With climate science increasingly under siege, Michaels has been getting plenty of airtime lately. Following reports of errors and sloppy research procedures with the reports produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Michaels featured prominently in a CBS News report last month, claiming that there is "no doubt the trust in the UN panel has been undermined." And after hacked emails revealed that a group of climate scientists had tried to block skeptical views from academic papers and journals, Michaels appeared on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 to debate Bill Nye (the "Science Guy"). Michaels said he was "troubled" that scientists at the heart of the controversy might have tried "to hide things" from Freedom of Information Act requests. He was also featured prominently in a New York Times piece calling the controversy "a mushroom cloud" for climate science, and appeared several times in the Wall Street Journal complaining that scientists said mean things about him in the emails. (It's worth emphasizing that while the incident revealed scientists behaving unprofessionally, nothing in the emails undermined the underlying science of climate change.)
But Michaels' credibility on climate is called into question by a trove of documents from a 2007 court case that attracted almost no scrutiny at the time. Those documents show that Michaels has financial ties to big energy interests—ties that he's worked hard to keep secret. Here's the back story:
Several years ago, the auto industry launched a salvo of lawsuits challenging the tougher vehicle emissions standards that had been introduced in many states. In 2007, Michaels was scheduled to appear as an expert witness on behalf of a challenge by Green Mountain Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge and the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers to emissions standards in Vermont. The auto industry's lawyers planned to put Michaels on the stand as an expert witness who would question the scientific finding that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet. But it soon became clear that lawyers defending Vermont's law were going to ask Michaels about the clients of his "advocacy science consulting firm," New Hope Environmental Services.
Michaels had never made a list of his clients public, and he refused to do so now, arguing that it was a confidential matter. The judge disagreed, and ruled that Michaels' clients were a "viable area of cross examination." "I understand that maybe it's a little embarrassing," said Judge William K. Sessions III. "[But] it's not highly confidential information."
In a rare move, the auto dealers pulled Michaels off their witness list. In an affidavit [PDF], Michaels stated that New Hope was his primary source of income, and being forced to reveal its clients would "imperil my livelihood." He emphasized that the "sole reason" he did not testify was "concern that my trial testimony would result in the loss of confidentiality for the New Hope information."
The auto lawyers were "desperate to shield who Pat Michaels makes his money from," David Bookbinder, chief climate counsel for the Sierra Club and one of the lawyers for the state in the case. "It's beyond unrealistic," said Bookbinder. "It's like saying in a speeding case that you're not able to ask about how fast someone was going."
As it turned out, Michaels' attempt to keep his client list secret wasn't entirely successful. The court documents reveal that lawyers for the defense saw records revealing that Michaels had received money from at least one very large energy company.
In addition, Greenpeace recently obtained an older copy of Michaels' curriculum vitae via a Freedom of Information Act request that shows that the Western Fuels Association, a coal and fuel-transportation business group, gave him a $63,000 grant in the early 1990s for "research on global climatic change." He also received $25,000 from the Edison Electric Institute, an association of electric utilities, from 1992-95 for "literature review of climate change and updates." And a 2006 leaked industry memo revealed that he received $100,000 in funding from the Intermountain Rural Electric Association to fund climate denial campaigning around the time of the release of An Inconvenient Truth. Reporter Ross Gelbspan wrote in his 1998 book The Heat is On, one of the earliest works documenting industry funding for climate change skepticism, that Michaels also received $49,000 came from the German Coal Mining Association and $40,000 from the western mining company Cyprus Minerals.
In the Vermont case, the auto dealers eventually replaced Michaels with John Christy, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville who believes that concerns about global warming might be overstated. However, Christy proved to be a far less agressive defender of that view than Michaels. According to court transcripts, Christy eventually admitted on the stand, "The increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is real. It is due primarily to the burning of fossil fuels." Vermont went on to win the case and eventually the Environmental Protection Agency not only granted states the right to set those higher emissions standards but adopted the stricter rules nationwide.
Michaels is still frequently called on as an expert source by mainstream media outlets. Even as he's bashed the IPCC for its lack of transparency, he refuses to come clean about the sources of his funding. It turns out the climate skeptics' most credible expert isn't so credible after all.
fishnwhenIcan
Well-Known Member
Sounds to me like someone we all know. How you doin Clayquot kid? Maybe you walked right into this one. Does your boss monitor your progress? You might want to consider a career change.
ClayoquotKid
Active Member
Ooooh. Good one.
Skip the content, attack the source, throw in an ad hominem.
Typical.
Skip the content, attack the source, throw in an ad hominem.
Typical.
Last edited by a moderator:
I never skipped the content, CK. The last few posts had quite a bit of content - over the science AND the politics. One of the links I gave: http://www.skepticalscience.com/patrick-michaels-history-getting-climate-wrong.html - was a rebuttal of the cut and paste post of yours from Patrick J. Michaels. There was quite an online discussion posted over this below the post.
Another link I posted: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm concerning a wrap-up of scientific papers on climate change and human-induced CO2 emissions. They found over 97% of the 12,000 peer-reviewed science articles published between 1991 and 2011 agreed with the assertion that these changes in CO2 emissions and the predicted global climate change are largely human-induced. That's a pretty solid agreement in the science and between climate scientists that our fossil-burning appetite has serious consequences. That's not just cherry-picking one or two articles - but is a survey of the available climate science. That's solid agreement in the science.
The reason there is a difference in some sections of the media verses the science - is that their paid PR people - like Patrick J. Michaels - have been effective consultants for the petroleum/coal industries. That's why I always recommend in going back to the actual science when there is a question over something like global warming/climate change - or the potential impacts of the open net-cage technology.
Ever watch the movie "Thank You for Smoking"? Pretty much sums up the game on the PR consultants side of things.
That is not an effective model of governance nor permanence for civilization though. If you don't care about what legacy we are leaving our kids and their kids - then go ahead - rape, pillage and plunder. If that is the reason you believe we have consciousness and life here on our rather special planet.
There are alternative - equally valid perspectives on how we should be governing ourselves. Some would state more valid reasons, even. Less greedy ones - some even would say. Certainly more sustainable ones. That is really the problem I have with the Ezra Levants of this world, and the hard right-wing so-called business perspective - they do not acknowledge - or even know - that there other perspectives and ways of living other than modelling their behaviour to promote greed.
The US Constitution - for example - talks about the protection of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" - NOT the protection of the stock market.
Just think about that one for a minute....
What if we protected the systems that enable us life?
Earth is a small spaceship of molten rock, with a thin crust, covered by a thinner crust of air/water spinning around another ball of gas, thousands of light years away from any other possible place we could live - even if we could find another Earth. There are critical systems that keep us alive on this planet - and even slight changes to some of these systems can have dramatic consequences. We are at a time that we can begin to understand the history of Earth now - using our technology - but we pay people to lie to us about those results so we can continue our destructive behaviour without any seemingly care for the future.
Planet Earth will survive with or without humans (for another 2-5 Billion years until the Sun becomes a red Giant - about the same time the Andromedia Galaxy winds through the Milky Way) - but we cannot survive without our spaceship keeping things just right for us.
Yet, the people who study these things (the 97% of the many authors of the 12,000 peer-reviewed studies, for example) are ignored as people like Patrick J. Michaels gets paid big $ to lie to us. Then people like CK apparently are proud to be one of those few who "dare to disagree", as the rest of the people who have read the science are only serving to "prop up their world-views and solidify their self-righteousness" - in their minds. Ignorance is truly not a virtue in this scenario.
What if we listened to the scientists who know their field of expertise, rather than the Patrick J. Michaels? What if we valued these people, their expertise, and their insights - rather than calling them "alarmists" like CK does? What if we valued the "Astronauts" of our spaceship Earth - like we do for the NASA Astronauts? What if we held people responsible for their lying - rather than pay big $ to people good at lying to us?
What if we protected the ability to be happy and have a good quality of life. What if that happiness had NOTHING to do with the stock market?
Different perspective, eh?
Another link I posted: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm concerning a wrap-up of scientific papers on climate change and human-induced CO2 emissions. They found over 97% of the 12,000 peer-reviewed science articles published between 1991 and 2011 agreed with the assertion that these changes in CO2 emissions and the predicted global climate change are largely human-induced. That's a pretty solid agreement in the science and between climate scientists that our fossil-burning appetite has serious consequences. That's not just cherry-picking one or two articles - but is a survey of the available climate science. That's solid agreement in the science.
The reason there is a difference in some sections of the media verses the science - is that their paid PR people - like Patrick J. Michaels - have been effective consultants for the petroleum/coal industries. That's why I always recommend in going back to the actual science when there is a question over something like global warming/climate change - or the potential impacts of the open net-cage technology.
Ever watch the movie "Thank You for Smoking"? Pretty much sums up the game on the PR consultants side of things.
That is not an effective model of governance nor permanence for civilization though. If you don't care about what legacy we are leaving our kids and their kids - then go ahead - rape, pillage and plunder. If that is the reason you believe we have consciousness and life here on our rather special planet.
There are alternative - equally valid perspectives on how we should be governing ourselves. Some would state more valid reasons, even. Less greedy ones - some even would say. Certainly more sustainable ones. That is really the problem I have with the Ezra Levants of this world, and the hard right-wing so-called business perspective - they do not acknowledge - or even know - that there other perspectives and ways of living other than modelling their behaviour to promote greed.
The US Constitution - for example - talks about the protection of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" - NOT the protection of the stock market.
Just think about that one for a minute....
What if we protected the systems that enable us life?
Earth is a small spaceship of molten rock, with a thin crust, covered by a thinner crust of air/water spinning around another ball of gas, thousands of light years away from any other possible place we could live - even if we could find another Earth. There are critical systems that keep us alive on this planet - and even slight changes to some of these systems can have dramatic consequences. We are at a time that we can begin to understand the history of Earth now - using our technology - but we pay people to lie to us about those results so we can continue our destructive behaviour without any seemingly care for the future.
Planet Earth will survive with or without humans (for another 2-5 Billion years until the Sun becomes a red Giant - about the same time the Andromedia Galaxy winds through the Milky Way) - but we cannot survive without our spaceship keeping things just right for us.
Yet, the people who study these things (the 97% of the many authors of the 12,000 peer-reviewed studies, for example) are ignored as people like Patrick J. Michaels gets paid big $ to lie to us. Then people like CK apparently are proud to be one of those few who "dare to disagree", as the rest of the people who have read the science are only serving to "prop up their world-views and solidify their self-righteousness" - in their minds. Ignorance is truly not a virtue in this scenario.
What if we listened to the scientists who know their field of expertise, rather than the Patrick J. Michaels? What if we valued these people, their expertise, and their insights - rather than calling them "alarmists" like CK does? What if we valued the "Astronauts" of our spaceship Earth - like we do for the NASA Astronauts? What if we held people responsible for their lying - rather than pay big $ to people good at lying to us?
What if we protected the ability to be happy and have a good quality of life. What if that happiness had NOTHING to do with the stock market?
Different perspective, eh?
Last edited by a moderator:
GLG
Well-Known Member
Ok CK I'll take a crack at it.
The debate here in the papers that Pat Michaels points to is about the sensitivity of the climate when you double the co2 content in the atmosphere. Currently we think it will be 2 degrees C globally when we reach 600ppm. The papers suggests this is not so and it will be less then 2 degree C. The true debate is how the sensitivity is calculated in the model that is proposed. Most of the scientist seem to think that the math is wrong. The problem is the complex nature of what they are trying to find out. One way to estimate the future is to look at the past. They are using 200 years of temp records that are not linear. There are outside factors like volcanoes, El Niño and La Niña, and the like. Add on top of that how we are burning fossil fuels that produce CO2 and SO2. What you get is temperatures that are wiggly as most have seen when they look at the different temp graphs. What was attempted to do was to remove the outside natural forces of volcanoes and the like. You know the ones we have no control of. What we would have left is the man made warning. That slope could be used to predict the future. One thing to point out is that the slope is not linear but is a curve. The more co2 the worse it gets, not good.
We all know that volcanoes have a cooling effect. Co2 has a warming effect and So2 has a cooling effect. The others have cooling or warming effects. Now we throw in clouds that can have both effects. Complex stuff that's for sure but here is the take away.... Richards is being disingenuous when he mentions Bozo and hay maker 1-2 punch when he points to these papers as this is some sort of proof that global warning is not true. He frames this as a debate of global warming when it's a debate about how bad things are looking for the future. His goal was for the fox tv or wall street journal crowd that would never read the science papers and if they did would not know what they mean. Michaels attempt was to show that there was a debate going on. (And somehow his side was winning) What the debate was is irreverent the true message was that the science was not settled hence the debate. Hook line and sinker....
Even if we find that both papers turn out to be right we still have a problem. We are on our way to 600ppm of co2. When we get there is only a matter of time. Will we be there at 2050 or 2075 or 2100, will it be our children that see the worst or will it be their children. The global average temp is now .8 degrees above base line. We have wacky weather now and 2 degrees will give us what, more wacky weather? The ipcc reports tell us we are on track for 4 to 6 degrees above baseline by 2100.
The earth cares not one bit what you or me post on this website. It will come into balance depending on what the CO2 level is. We see that right now when we look at the arctic ice cap. It's melting away before our very eyes. It's only a matter of a time when we will see it gone in the summer time. They call that the Arctic Ice Death Spiral. It shows us that things are indeed heating up. As that goes so does Greenland ice sheet. When that goes we will have to move Vancouver some where else because we can't build a sea wall to protect it. That's not a fair trade so we can keep some members here happy working in the oil and gas industry.
So the questions is do we sit here and count money or do we spend it fixing things.
CK you seem to think we should collect and count money and I think it's time to spend or invest some for the future people of earth. How we get the job done is the real debate we should be having not the one Michaels is pointing you to. Or like Harper say's "look we have pandas"
The debate here in the papers that Pat Michaels points to is about the sensitivity of the climate when you double the co2 content in the atmosphere. Currently we think it will be 2 degrees C globally when we reach 600ppm. The papers suggests this is not so and it will be less then 2 degree C. The true debate is how the sensitivity is calculated in the model that is proposed. Most of the scientist seem to think that the math is wrong. The problem is the complex nature of what they are trying to find out. One way to estimate the future is to look at the past. They are using 200 years of temp records that are not linear. There are outside factors like volcanoes, El Niño and La Niña, and the like. Add on top of that how we are burning fossil fuels that produce CO2 and SO2. What you get is temperatures that are wiggly as most have seen when they look at the different temp graphs. What was attempted to do was to remove the outside natural forces of volcanoes and the like. You know the ones we have no control of. What we would have left is the man made warning. That slope could be used to predict the future. One thing to point out is that the slope is not linear but is a curve. The more co2 the worse it gets, not good.
We all know that volcanoes have a cooling effect. Co2 has a warming effect and So2 has a cooling effect. The others have cooling or warming effects. Now we throw in clouds that can have both effects. Complex stuff that's for sure but here is the take away.... Richards is being disingenuous when he mentions Bozo and hay maker 1-2 punch when he points to these papers as this is some sort of proof that global warning is not true. He frames this as a debate of global warming when it's a debate about how bad things are looking for the future. His goal was for the fox tv or wall street journal crowd that would never read the science papers and if they did would not know what they mean. Michaels attempt was to show that there was a debate going on. (And somehow his side was winning) What the debate was is irreverent the true message was that the science was not settled hence the debate. Hook line and sinker....
Even if we find that both papers turn out to be right we still have a problem. We are on our way to 600ppm of co2. When we get there is only a matter of time. Will we be there at 2050 or 2075 or 2100, will it be our children that see the worst or will it be their children. The global average temp is now .8 degrees above base line. We have wacky weather now and 2 degrees will give us what, more wacky weather? The ipcc reports tell us we are on track for 4 to 6 degrees above baseline by 2100.
The earth cares not one bit what you or me post on this website. It will come into balance depending on what the CO2 level is. We see that right now when we look at the arctic ice cap. It's melting away before our very eyes. It's only a matter of a time when we will see it gone in the summer time. They call that the Arctic Ice Death Spiral. It shows us that things are indeed heating up. As that goes so does Greenland ice sheet. When that goes we will have to move Vancouver some where else because we can't build a sea wall to protect it. That's not a fair trade so we can keep some members here happy working in the oil and gas industry.
So the questions is do we sit here and count money or do we spend it fixing things.
CK you seem to think we should collect and count money and I think it's time to spend or invest some for the future people of earth. How we get the job done is the real debate we should be having not the one Michaels is pointing you to. Or like Harper say's "look we have pandas"
GLG
Well-Known Member
So this is how a climate scientist speaks??? That's a first but then all can see he has no class.
So his workmanship would be the same ie 2nd class
ClayoquotKid
Active Member
Cook's 97% is an absolute crock, and the fact that you use it to prop up your argument shows how willing you are to turn a blind eye to anything that does not support the AGW view.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/
Go ahead, attack the source if you must, but the reality of the situation will not change.
(I caught the "Pat" thing after I put down my wine, and had a second look - I guess you will still remain anonymous, among other things.)
ClayoquotKid
Active Member
Heading out fishing for the weekend, as always it's been a treat.
Port Alberni Salmonfest here I come.
How about you Aqua? When's the last time you wet a line there bud?
One thing I will leave you with is this: If my team consisted of people like Mann, Cook, Lewandowsky, Pachauri (to name a few) - I would be deeply concerned.
Port Alberni Salmonfest here I come.
How about you Aqua? When's the last time you wet a line there bud?
One thing I will leave you with is this: If my team consisted of people like Mann, Cook, Lewandowsky, Pachauri (to name a few) - I would be deeply concerned.
Yesterday, CK. I use square hooks, though.
GLG
Well-Known Member
Don't need to attack the source but is that where you get your science from an Op-Ed on Forbes?
Cook et al 2013 (97%) is a peer reviewed study.
Your side brought out one of the big guns with Tol to shoot holes in the study.
It was challenged but that didn't go to well for your side.
In fact it seems that it has been dropped when this came out.
So there you have it. Your side tried to shoot Cook et al and submitted a paper to point out the objections. The Journal reviewed the objections and kicked it to the gutter where it belongs.
Isn't science great.....
My advice to you would be stop watching Fox News or Sun TV for your science.
They may be great for news on business (I don't know) but I do know they know jack about AGW.
Whats that statement your leader Bill O'Rilley of the Factor says.
Tide goes in, Tide goes out. No one knows why.
Yea Fox news for science..... Face plant.... LOL
Last edited by a moderator:
triplenickel
Well-Known Member
I thought you were smarter than this. It's about a gigantic system that you are as much a part of as I am. I've put challenges to you before about ideas for global energy sources and funding for the new hospitals that will take care of your old bones or any government programs and you come back with zero and deflections. Because deep down you know it's reality, it's the best compromise and until people like you are willing to give up their way of life it's not changing. You still consume the products you rally against and benefit from the government programs they provide. You made your money from the energy sector in Alberta, you've admitted it here but then denied it later, we both know you did as you've expressed regret about the way you created the lifestyle you live. Your generation put this planet where it is economically, socially, politically, and environmentally. Now people like you and other users of the system want to take opportunities away from me and my generation while still reaping the rewards and not putting their money where their mouths are. Drive your boat around for nothing but ***** and giggles pumping your exhaust directly into the water you profess to care so deeply about, live in one of the most unsustainable parts of North America where we truck, ship, or fly everything in, while you sit on your high horse and **** talk those that make your very existence possible providing you with necessities for life. It's like a broken record it's the same **** over and over, smug tourism operators too short sighted to see who their customers are. How many people can afford the $1000 fishing days let alone hotels, ferries, and fuel? First Nations holding a protest sign in one hand with the other waiting for a hand out. Lazy hippies waiting for their EI or welfare check and bitching about those that make it possible.
I applaud your ideals and I'll come with you if you go first. Your continual denial of any benefits to society as a whole from these industries shows just how far from reality your opinion is, fortunately you have no real power in the decision making process. As long as people like you are unwilling to give up consumption the product will be produced, you are the system not just some members working in the oil and gas industry.
The first thing you should do is drop the high horse riding self righteous attitude and check back in with reality. Or just keep doing nothing, counting your money from your perfectly ethical retirement portfolio earned in a perfectly ethical way while copying and pasting **** here. You live in a glass house.
Thanks for your honesty, 3x5. Appreciate hearing how you feel about the mess we are in.
I think we all have frustrations about the way things are going. I think we are all - in our own ways - caring enough to want change.
Just remember neither I, you nor GLG were to blame over how things were set-up before we arrived on this planet. We do have - I believe - a responsibility to help clean-up things as best we can with our abilities within our own short time on this planet.
I think we all acknowledge - when we think of it - the fact that our current lifestyles utilize much fossil fuels in living the way we do.
I think we can all do our part as far as using less fossil fuels and when/where we can - use alternative transportation sources, as an example.
Unfortunately, often within Canada geographically - as an example - people are few and far between. Often there are few opportunities for viable public transport outside of the cities.
Canada is also a "cold" country - requiring our houses to be heated well above ambient outside temperatures during quite a bit of the year.
SO - we have extra challenges in weaning ourselves off fossil fuels.
I think this is where we are lacking leadership. I think this is where the corruption and collusion hamstrings us in developing a long-term vision. This is precisely where governments are supposed to take the initiative. Yet, obviously - they have not. What is your perception as to the reason for that?
My take on people who believe the current corporate dogma about free trade and Capitalism expect that if there is a need - that the free trade economy will develop the market and all our ills will be relieved.
In reality - nothing is free. Capitalism develops the market it wants. The market it wants is the most profitable one - not the market that provides choice and opportunity. The more "rare" a product is - the more you can charge for it.
Why did many major cities in Canada have an electric public transportation system in the early 1900s - but in almost all cases - the infrastructure was removed?
They have had electric cars since the 1920s - that were quite capable of competing with internal combustion engines at the time - but that market "disappeared"?
Why don't we have viable alternatives that were already developed nearly 100 years ago?
Don't blame this on GLG or those hippies or those FNs.
That's what manipulators want - divide and conquer. Get the peons fighting among themselves and remove the focus from the manipulation.
You've seen the past few postings on Patrick Michaels, and the Koch Brothers. Why do you think they kept the funding a secret?
I think we all have frustrations about the way things are going. I think we are all - in our own ways - caring enough to want change.
Just remember neither I, you nor GLG were to blame over how things were set-up before we arrived on this planet. We do have - I believe - a responsibility to help clean-up things as best we can with our abilities within our own short time on this planet.
I think we all acknowledge - when we think of it - the fact that our current lifestyles utilize much fossil fuels in living the way we do.
I think we can all do our part as far as using less fossil fuels and when/where we can - use alternative transportation sources, as an example.
Unfortunately, often within Canada geographically - as an example - people are few and far between. Often there are few opportunities for viable public transport outside of the cities.
Canada is also a "cold" country - requiring our houses to be heated well above ambient outside temperatures during quite a bit of the year.
SO - we have extra challenges in weaning ourselves off fossil fuels.
I think this is where we are lacking leadership. I think this is where the corruption and collusion hamstrings us in developing a long-term vision. This is precisely where governments are supposed to take the initiative. Yet, obviously - they have not. What is your perception as to the reason for that?
My take on people who believe the current corporate dogma about free trade and Capitalism expect that if there is a need - that the free trade economy will develop the market and all our ills will be relieved.
In reality - nothing is free. Capitalism develops the market it wants. The market it wants is the most profitable one - not the market that provides choice and opportunity. The more "rare" a product is - the more you can charge for it.
Why did many major cities in Canada have an electric public transportation system in the early 1900s - but in almost all cases - the infrastructure was removed?
They have had electric cars since the 1920s - that were quite capable of competing with internal combustion engines at the time - but that market "disappeared"?
Why don't we have viable alternatives that were already developed nearly 100 years ago?
Don't blame this on GLG or those hippies or those FNs.
That's what manipulators want - divide and conquer. Get the peons fighting among themselves and remove the focus from the manipulation.
You've seen the past few postings on Patrick Michaels, and the Koch Brothers. Why do you think they kept the funding a secret?
Last edited by a moderator:
triplenickel
Well-Known Member
I don't agree with blaming the system at all, it's up to individuals to change and none are willing to make the sacrifices. Accept it or do something but stop the constant broken record short sighted trash talk while being the problem. You keep talking about the capitalists, and the market as if they're some phantom entity, it isn't it's you and I. We're the share holders, the mutual fund holders we are the system that we ***** about. Capitalism will develop a market if there's a need, but there isn't because none of us want it. We don't need leadership we need individual responsibility, I don't want to live where the gov tells me where to set my thermostat. Nor do I or anyone else want to pay the rates needed to run my home on alternative energies.
I made some comments earlier about the beef and dairy industries but my bait must have been stinky because no one took it, either that or they don't understand or care enough to consider how they could personally affect change. Think about it for a second, it's something we could all stop consuming tomorrow with basically zero negative effect on quality of life. It would help personal and environmental health, we can go without it unlike fossil fuels and no one can be bothered. You don't have to live in a cold house or ride a bike to Saskatchewan instead of drive, there's some low hanging fruit no one will grab. Think a little outside the box.
For the record despite my stance and employment in the industry I suspect I have a smaller carbon footprint in my personal life than 90% of the people complaining. By working here I can at least ensure my part of it is done as well as currently possible. The system is pretty flawed but we are all the system so that's why I'll blame those groups along with myself. I'm not gonna take a self righteous stance because I realize I am the system.
Edit: Not dodging the last question, I haven't read and given it enough thought to have anything to say. Intelligent or otherwise!
Last edited by a moderator:
triplenickel
Well-Known Member
So these LNG plants will eventually come online, and we'll sell our resources to the Asian market. This will create good paying long term jobs so people can afford holidays and keep tourism and local mom and pop shops open (they want profit just like the evil corps) as the workers will have a disposable income. This will keep the government coffers filled via taxes and royalties so we can have hospitals, paved roads, pay the teachers, pay the FN, pay the welfare and EI seasonal workers (who do it by choice) and maybe just maybe there will be enough left over so my generation can have a pension. If not hopefully my mutual funds and personal investments in these evil corporations who want to make a profit will carry me through my golden years like GLG.
Someone has to supply this energy as we in the west greedily gobble up everything they produce. Do you want them burning coal as current or gas produced in a third world country with lax environmental and labor laws or what is arguably the best in the world? There's an awfully big picture to consider, it's not a single sided issue.
Someone has to supply this energy as we in the west greedily gobble up everything they produce. Do you want them burning coal as current or gas produced in a third world country with lax environmental and labor laws or what is arguably the best in the world? There's an awfully big picture to consider, it's not a single sided issue.
I agree that it is up to each of us as individuals to help change the system as much as we can - using our abilities and interest - to affect change where we can 3x5.
However - it is the system that is the problem.
You also assume that we as individuals have the opportunities you currently enjoy - like extra money for becoming share holders and mutual fund holders. There is also an implicit assumption that we should all be ok with supporting that system - even if we had the extra money to do so.
Compared to my world and my experience - you live in a world with many more advantages than I enjoy, 3x5. I also understand that I live in a world with many more opportunities than most of the rest of the population of the planet.
So - NO - emphatically - NO - we do not own nor control the system.
I agree - you made some good points about that we should try to - including using our purchasing power - where/when that exists. I think we should add getting involved in democracy as a priority, and demanding inclusion, openness and transparency in governance.
Also good comments about disposable income. We should all get paid a decent amount for our labours - not just the CEOs of banks and corporations - and politicians.
Another implicit assumption - that somehow this current global capitalist system has the right to pretend it is some form of governance. It is not. It is a system of economic colonialism designed to benefit that 1% of the population who control and profit from it.
Governance - is how people govern themselves. This is in no way attached to Capitalism - except through the current system of bribes, kick-backs and party donations. Most would define this as corruption and collusion within government - not governance itself.
Civilization has over the past 5000-10000 years had many forms of governance. Some forms were admittedly cruel by todays' standards - and many civilizations depended upon slaves (once they reached a certain size and influence). Almost every large civilization failed at some point due to corruption and/or being overextended and not looking to the future. Today's archaeology is indicating that small-scale global climate effects have had dramatic consequences in setting into play the factors that caused the decline of these civilizations.
Our current so-called "civilization" is at no less of a risk of failing if we continue to ignore the consequences of our action vis-à-vis human-induced global climate change. Most of the world's population currently lives within a few meters of current sea levels. What is going to happen as these sea levels rise? Would you buy waterfront property in Florida? If so - do you think your grandkids will enjoy that property? Have you looked at the rate of sea level rise? Have you been paying attention to the melting of the ice sheets?
Today our slaves are a diminishing number of hydrocarbon molecules that were trapped in the crust for over 200 million years, and are being deposited in our atmosphere as CO2 and other gases in predicted amounts that corresponded to planetary mass die-offs millions of years ago.
It is becoming more costly to get these oil reserves out of the ground. We give $Billions away to the rather rich oil companies to keep doing this. Then we plan to ship more of the rather risky unrefined product (e.g. Enbridge) overseas to get it refined there - chanting the mantra of "jobs, jobs, jobs". Is any of this actually making any sense to you? It doesn't to me.
Other countries will little or no oil reserves are developing the expertise for alternative energy sources - and making profits doing this - but we seem to be stuck in this little cocoon of blaming FNs, hippies, and other people for being "lazy" and not attending shareholder meetings in affecting change in this scenario.
Is that really how you see the world 3x5?
However - it is the system that is the problem.
You also assume that we as individuals have the opportunities you currently enjoy - like extra money for becoming share holders and mutual fund holders. There is also an implicit assumption that we should all be ok with supporting that system - even if we had the extra money to do so.
Compared to my world and my experience - you live in a world with many more advantages than I enjoy, 3x5. I also understand that I live in a world with many more opportunities than most of the rest of the population of the planet.
So - NO - emphatically - NO - we do not own nor control the system.
I agree - you made some good points about that we should try to - including using our purchasing power - where/when that exists. I think we should add getting involved in democracy as a priority, and demanding inclusion, openness and transparency in governance.
Also good comments about disposable income. We should all get paid a decent amount for our labours - not just the CEOs of banks and corporations - and politicians.
Another implicit assumption - that somehow this current global capitalist system has the right to pretend it is some form of governance. It is not. It is a system of economic colonialism designed to benefit that 1% of the population who control and profit from it.
Governance - is how people govern themselves. This is in no way attached to Capitalism - except through the current system of bribes, kick-backs and party donations. Most would define this as corruption and collusion within government - not governance itself.
Civilization has over the past 5000-10000 years had many forms of governance. Some forms were admittedly cruel by todays' standards - and many civilizations depended upon slaves (once they reached a certain size and influence). Almost every large civilization failed at some point due to corruption and/or being overextended and not looking to the future. Today's archaeology is indicating that small-scale global climate effects have had dramatic consequences in setting into play the factors that caused the decline of these civilizations.
Our current so-called "civilization" is at no less of a risk of failing if we continue to ignore the consequences of our action vis-à-vis human-induced global climate change. Most of the world's population currently lives within a few meters of current sea levels. What is going to happen as these sea levels rise? Would you buy waterfront property in Florida? If so - do you think your grandkids will enjoy that property? Have you looked at the rate of sea level rise? Have you been paying attention to the melting of the ice sheets?
Today our slaves are a diminishing number of hydrocarbon molecules that were trapped in the crust for over 200 million years, and are being deposited in our atmosphere as CO2 and other gases in predicted amounts that corresponded to planetary mass die-offs millions of years ago.
It is becoming more costly to get these oil reserves out of the ground. We give $Billions away to the rather rich oil companies to keep doing this. Then we plan to ship more of the rather risky unrefined product (e.g. Enbridge) overseas to get it refined there - chanting the mantra of "jobs, jobs, jobs". Is any of this actually making any sense to you? It doesn't to me.
Other countries will little or no oil reserves are developing the expertise for alternative energy sources - and making profits doing this - but we seem to be stuck in this little cocoon of blaming FNs, hippies, and other people for being "lazy" and not attending shareholder meetings in affecting change in this scenario.
Is that really how you see the world 3x5?
Last edited by a moderator:
GLG
Well-Known Member
Thanks for your post 3x5 a bit harsh but I understand why.
I to am frustrated by the lack of leadership on these important matters.
It does show in my posts as well in others and hope you cut me some slack as I do you.
I do read your posts and do think about what you are saying.
Here is part of my solution.
We have commitments here in BC and Canada that we need to live up to them.
First and foremost is no industry in BC should be above the law including LNG
(Yes I know they changed the law to exclude the LNG industry and that was wrong.)
http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_10022_01#part1
Part 1 — British Columbia's Energy Objectives
British Columbia's energy objectives
2 The following comprise British Columbia's energy objectives:
(a) to achieve electricity self-sufficiency;
(b) to take demand-side measures and to conserve energy, including the objective of the authority reducing its expected increase in demand for electricity by the year 2020 by at least 66%;
(c) to generate at least 93% of the electricity in British Columbia from clean or renewable resources and to build the infrastructure necessary to transmit that electricity;
(d) to use and foster the development in British Columbia of innovative technologies that support energy conservation and efficiency and the use of clean or renewable resources;
(e) to ensure the authority's ratepayers receive the benefits of the heritage assets and to ensure the benefits of the heritage contract under the BC Hydro Public Power Legacy and Heritage Contract Act continue to accrue to the authority's ratepayers;
(f) to ensure the authority's rates remain among the most competitive of rates charged by public utilities in North America;
(g) to reduce BC greenhouse gas emissions
(i) by 2012 and for each subsequent calendar year to at least 6% less than the level of those emissions in 2007,
(ii) by 2016 and for each subsequent calendar year to at least 18% less than the level of those emissions in 2007,
(iii) by 2020 and for each subsequent calendar year to at least 33% less than the level of those emissions in 2007,
(iv) by 2050 and for each subsequent calendar year to at least 80% less than the level of those emissions in 2007, and
(v) by such other amounts as determined under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act;
(h) to encourage the switching from one kind of energy source or use to another that decreases greenhouse gas emissions in British Columbia;
(i) to encourage communities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and use energy efficiently;
(j) to reduce waste by encouraging the use of waste heat, biogas and biomass;
(k) to encourage economic development and the creation and retention of jobs;
(l) to foster the development of first nation and rural communities through the use and development of clean or renewable resources;
(m) to maximize the value, including the incremental value of the resources being clean or renewable resources, of British Columbia's generation and transmission assets for the benefit of British Columbia;
(n) to be a net exporter of electricity from clean or renewable resources with the intention of benefiting all British Columbians and reducing greenhouse gas emissions in regions in which British Columbia trades electricity while protecting the interests of persons who receive or may receive service in British Columbia;
(o) to achieve British Columbia's energy objectives without the use of nuclear power;
(p) to ensure the commission, under the Utilities Commission Act, continues to regulate the authority with respect to domestic rates but not with respect to expenditures for export, except as provided by this Act.
Second
On January 29th, 2010 Canada inscribed in the Copenhagen Accord its 2020 economy-wide target of a 17 percent reduction in greenhouse gases from 2005 levels. This target is completely aligned with the U.S. target.
http://www.climatechange.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=AA3F6868-1
Harper has done the most damage and is leading us backwards on this one.
Third
Pacific Coast Collaborative Agreement
Preamble
The Governments of California, British Columbia, Oregon and Washington, Pursuant to the Memorandum to Establish the Pacific Coast Collaborative
of June 2008, as provided for in Article 6;
Affirming our shared vision of Pacific North America as a model of innovation that sustains our communities and creates jobs and new
economic opportunities for our combined population of 53 million;
Recognizing that the Pacific Coast is a region bound together by a common geography, shared infrastructure and a regional economy with a combined GDP of US $2.8 trillion, which makes it the world’s fifth largest;
Acknowledging the clear and convincing scientific evidence of climate change, ocean acidification and other impacts from increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which threaten our people, our economy and our natural resources;
Emphasizing that states and provinces around the world are battling climate change through technology innovation and actions that limit greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollution while creating economic growth, consumer savings and new jobs;
Celebrating that our own governments have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by adopting regulatory, policy and market-based measures that shift energy generation to clean and renewable sources, manage energy use through greater efficiency and conservation, and enable and promote consumer choice for clean vehicles;
Recalling the findings of the 2012 West Coast Clean Economy report which projected 1.03 million new jobs could be created in key sectors, such as energy efficiency and advanced transportation, assuming the right policy environment;
Supporting positive federal action to combat climate change, including President Obama’s climate action plan and proposed rules to limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants;
Joining the growing international convergence on the need to secure an international agreement to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, including discussions at the coming Conference of Parties meetings in Warsaw (2013), Lima (2014) and Paris (2015); and
Agreeing that meaningful coordination and linkage between states and provinces across North America and the world on actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions can improve the effectiveness of these actions, increase their overall positive impact and build momentum for broader international coordination to combat climate change;
http://www.pacificcoastcollaborative.org/Documents/Pacific Coast Climate Action Plan.pdf
If you have read my posts you would see that we are making headway but there is one industry that is not. In fact they are going backwards with plans to double our GHG in the near future.
We just can't have that in it's present form. If LNG wants to move forward they need to be carbon neutral from well to waterline. It needs to get with the program like every other industry in Canada.
I'll post up what can be done on a personal level on my next post.
As Red Green would say, Remember we are all in this together.
FYI I left the oil patch 30 years ago and have no investments in it.
Consulting in IT for Property Management is where I did well.
I to am frustrated by the lack of leadership on these important matters.
It does show in my posts as well in others and hope you cut me some slack as I do you.
I do read your posts and do think about what you are saying.
Here is part of my solution.
We have commitments here in BC and Canada that we need to live up to them.
First and foremost is no industry in BC should be above the law including LNG
(Yes I know they changed the law to exclude the LNG industry and that was wrong.)
http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_10022_01#part1
Part 1 — British Columbia's Energy Objectives
British Columbia's energy objectives
2 The following comprise British Columbia's energy objectives:
(a) to achieve electricity self-sufficiency;
(b) to take demand-side measures and to conserve energy, including the objective of the authority reducing its expected increase in demand for electricity by the year 2020 by at least 66%;
(c) to generate at least 93% of the electricity in British Columbia from clean or renewable resources and to build the infrastructure necessary to transmit that electricity;
(d) to use and foster the development in British Columbia of innovative technologies that support energy conservation and efficiency and the use of clean or renewable resources;
(e) to ensure the authority's ratepayers receive the benefits of the heritage assets and to ensure the benefits of the heritage contract under the BC Hydro Public Power Legacy and Heritage Contract Act continue to accrue to the authority's ratepayers;
(f) to ensure the authority's rates remain among the most competitive of rates charged by public utilities in North America;
(g) to reduce BC greenhouse gas emissions
(i) by 2012 and for each subsequent calendar year to at least 6% less than the level of those emissions in 2007,
(ii) by 2016 and for each subsequent calendar year to at least 18% less than the level of those emissions in 2007,
(iii) by 2020 and for each subsequent calendar year to at least 33% less than the level of those emissions in 2007,
(iv) by 2050 and for each subsequent calendar year to at least 80% less than the level of those emissions in 2007, and
(v) by such other amounts as determined under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act;
(h) to encourage the switching from one kind of energy source or use to another that decreases greenhouse gas emissions in British Columbia;
(i) to encourage communities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and use energy efficiently;
(j) to reduce waste by encouraging the use of waste heat, biogas and biomass;
(k) to encourage economic development and the creation and retention of jobs;
(l) to foster the development of first nation and rural communities through the use and development of clean or renewable resources;
(m) to maximize the value, including the incremental value of the resources being clean or renewable resources, of British Columbia's generation and transmission assets for the benefit of British Columbia;
(n) to be a net exporter of electricity from clean or renewable resources with the intention of benefiting all British Columbians and reducing greenhouse gas emissions in regions in which British Columbia trades electricity while protecting the interests of persons who receive or may receive service in British Columbia;
(o) to achieve British Columbia's energy objectives without the use of nuclear power;
(p) to ensure the commission, under the Utilities Commission Act, continues to regulate the authority with respect to domestic rates but not with respect to expenditures for export, except as provided by this Act.
Second
On January 29th, 2010 Canada inscribed in the Copenhagen Accord its 2020 economy-wide target of a 17 percent reduction in greenhouse gases from 2005 levels. This target is completely aligned with the U.S. target.
http://www.climatechange.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=AA3F6868-1
Harper has done the most damage and is leading us backwards on this one.
Third
Pacific Coast Collaborative Agreement
Preamble
The Governments of California, British Columbia, Oregon and Washington, Pursuant to the Memorandum to Establish the Pacific Coast Collaborative
of June 2008, as provided for in Article 6;
Affirming our shared vision of Pacific North America as a model of innovation that sustains our communities and creates jobs and new
economic opportunities for our combined population of 53 million;
Recognizing that the Pacific Coast is a region bound together by a common geography, shared infrastructure and a regional economy with a combined GDP of US $2.8 trillion, which makes it the world’s fifth largest;
Acknowledging the clear and convincing scientific evidence of climate change, ocean acidification and other impacts from increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which threaten our people, our economy and our natural resources;
Emphasizing that states and provinces around the world are battling climate change through technology innovation and actions that limit greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollution while creating economic growth, consumer savings and new jobs;
Celebrating that our own governments have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by adopting regulatory, policy and market-based measures that shift energy generation to clean and renewable sources, manage energy use through greater efficiency and conservation, and enable and promote consumer choice for clean vehicles;
Recalling the findings of the 2012 West Coast Clean Economy report which projected 1.03 million new jobs could be created in key sectors, such as energy efficiency and advanced transportation, assuming the right policy environment;
Supporting positive federal action to combat climate change, including President Obama’s climate action plan and proposed rules to limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants;
Joining the growing international convergence on the need to secure an international agreement to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, including discussions at the coming Conference of Parties meetings in Warsaw (2013), Lima (2014) and Paris (2015); and
Agreeing that meaningful coordination and linkage between states and provinces across North America and the world on actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions can improve the effectiveness of these actions, increase their overall positive impact and build momentum for broader international coordination to combat climate change;
http://www.pacificcoastcollaborative.org/Documents/Pacific Coast Climate Action Plan.pdf
If you have read my posts you would see that we are making headway but there is one industry that is not. In fact they are going backwards with plans to double our GHG in the near future.
We just can't have that in it's present form. If LNG wants to move forward they need to be carbon neutral from well to waterline. It needs to get with the program like every other industry in Canada.
I'll post up what can be done on a personal level on my next post.
As Red Green would say, Remember we are all in this together.
FYI I left the oil patch 30 years ago and have no investments in it.
Consulting in IT for Property Management is where I did well.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
Similar threads
