Canada disgraces itself on the enviroment.

Originally posted by Starhawk
They are promoting the fact that it is worth letting the environment collapse to save big business the minor financial inconveniencing of changing the way they do things to reduce their damage to out environment. Nuclear power is a good supplants to wind and solar power, provided it has enough federal regulation to minimize the danger.

The brilliant conservative party's idea is to replace light-bulbs with ones that pose a greater risk to the environment and cannot be disposed normally.

how long do you figure there is until said environmental "collapse"?

How much is one dollar of economic prosperity worth to you as far as the environment is concerned? For instance, if it cost 7 billion to reduce the overall effect we were having 5%, would that be worth it?

Most scientists believe we are living in the last century of this planet. The decline is speeding up. More and more species are dying off. I know many don't care because they don't understand, but bees are in rapid decline on this earth.

So are Black American baseball players. Oh no.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Most scientists believe we are living in the last century of this planet. The decline is speeding up. More and more species are dying off. I know many don't care because they don't understand, but bees are in rapid decline on this earth.

ok

so, you are saying 100 years until collapse?

EDIT: any comment on this:

Originally posted by inimalist
How much is one dollar of economic prosperity worth to you as far as the environment is concerned? For instance, if it cost 7 billion to reduce the overall effect we were having 5%, would that be worth it?

Originally posted by inimalist
ok

so, you are saying 100 years until collapse?

EDIT: any comment on this:

No I am saying within that time.

And yes it would be worth it. The environment is more important then big business.

so environmental collapse is within 0-100 years and even massive losses to the economy are worth negligible positive effects on our environment?

Originally posted by inimalist
so environmental collapse is within 0-100 years and even massive losses to the economy are worth negligible positive effects on our environment?

No, but losses to the economy are worth massive positive effects on our environment.

Originally posted by Starhawk
No, but losses to the economy are worth massive positive effects on our environment.

what would be a massive positive effect to the environment and how much of the economy would you be willing to sacrifice to get it?

Originally posted by inimalist
what would be a massive positive effect to the environment and how much of the economy would you be willing to sacrifice to get it?

Halting it's collapse, perhaps even trying to begin to repair the damage if only in a small way, and I would sacrifice all of it because if we don't then we are all dead and what is the point of saving the economy then.

ALL of the economy?

aside from the environment, what do you think the implication of stopping Canada's economy would be?

I understand the fallout, but as opposed to a lifeless planet, anything is worth sacrificing.

lifeless planet?

do you global warming has the potential to kill all life on earth?

Global Warming is only one environmental issue, halting global warming will help, but we need to expand into other areas.

honestly though, whatever the cause, do you truly believe the planet earth, and not just comfortable human living conditions, is in danger?

Yes, As I said cancer rates are on an ever increasing rise, species are dying off. The air quality is getting worse. More and more cases of polluted water supplies. These are just a few of the symptoms.

wow

I see where your opinions on global warming come from...

You remind me a lot of my one friend on this one. I made a bet with her for 10 000 dollars that in 10 years, money would no longer be in use because of the collapse of the corrupt corporate capitalist system.

Even if we do pollute ourselves to death, the earth will survive. Any changes on the environment humans are having cannot be compared in any way to the changes cyanobacteria had, or any of the extinction events in history. To try and go above our own temporal interpretation of climate change, it is these changes in environment that produce what is called "punctuated equilibrium", so theoretically, life on earth, after it adapts to the changes humans have made, should flourish. /shrug

Yes my opinions come from facts, and the earth has never had to deal with an industrialized human civilization. Species are dying off, bees are the latest to start going. You want to protect the economy, I want to protect the environment.

well, to begin with, lets not put words into my mouth.

you've said bees several times, though I'm sure you are just imitating Bill Maher, at let me let you in on a little secret, he isn't an entomologist, he is a comedian.

industrialized human civilization has done little to the environment compared to extinction events. EXTINCTION EVENTS. Cyanobacteria also irreversibly changed the environment, had it not been for them, humans would have never evolved.

And lastly, I personally think its no more than cute the way you claim to know "facts" or the mentality of the "scientific community". Notice how here, like before, I'm not posing an argument (even though you seem to associate my criticism with anti-environmental ideology) but merely asking you to show some humility.

I don't want to just say "I know more than you do about this", but... well... your best source is Bill Maher and you called a paper written by NASA scientists in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate a right wing publication...

Wow that is one of the most arrogant condescending posts I've read and around here that is saying allot. And while I may be a fan of Bill Maher, I do not use him as the basis for my arguments. Many people agree that more and more species are dying off such as bees, Health Canada has stated that Cancer is rising for hast it will soon be the number one killer. My local news does air quality reports everyday and they are getting worse year after year. There has been allot more polluted water supplies including a couple new ones in my city. We are in constant battles over where our garbage is going because we don't know where to put it anymore. Farmers are having a more and more difficult time due to the now erratic weather shifts.

And for your information I also watch Bill O'Rielly and many right wing programs, just top see what the other side is trying to pass off.

What I'm seeing is that Starhawk has no idea about the science behind global warming. Which doesn't surprise me (he's a law student). When asked to explain the opposing sides argument he failed to mention any of the science that they are using to back their arguments. Further, he has yet to post any evidence from his own side of the argument.

Solution: Starhawk has no idea what he is talking about because he wants to believe that big business is an evil (because he is communist?).

Now, I am all for feasible environmental reform (ie, nuclear power, massive recycling programs, improved waste disposal, etc.). Starhawk has zero solutions, no idea what we actually need to stop and cannot support why he believes Kyoto to be the best solution even though it is obviously counter productive.

Solution: Starhawk is has no idea what is going on and is only continuing this argument to preserve his dignity (defense mechanism = Psychology 101 [actually it was Psychology 105 for me in my day...)

The third thing that he has not addressed is the fact that the Conservatives are a minority government. There was support for the scrapping of Kyoto in the other three parties which are all liberal. Therefore, even the liberal politicians that invoked the Kyoto Accord in Canada now realize that it is infeasible.

Fourth point = the ozone layer IS repairing itself.