A nice little rant by a local writer on today’s Op-ed page as a counter to the reams of newsprint devoted earnestly and often eye glazingly to doing something about global warming, climate change and blah blah blah. It’s sure to rankle the greennecks out there. I’ve already overheard one of the greener reporters in the newsroom chew out the Op-ed editor author for running this article. Bravo to Tom Langdon!
What are the agendas of climate activists?
by Tom Langdon
Enough already! I’ve had it up to here with the likes of Al Gore and David Suzuki telling us the world is going to end next week.
Sorry, but I find it hard to believe diatribes delivered by people that have no expertise in a field of study as complex as this one.
If you think I’m off base, look up Suzuki’s degrees and you will find he has degrees in biology and zoology and at one time was respected by his peers for his knowledge in those fields.
However, he does not have a degree in climatology.
Perhaps that’s why he refuses to publicly debate a real climatologist and prefers to just present a one-sided view through speeches to the converted and through interviews with the media who hang on his every word as if he were the Almighty Himself (or is it Herself?).
At least Suzuki is a Canadian and as such has a right to criticize what he perceives as shortcomings by the various governing bodies in this country.
Gore, on the other hand, is a foreigner who thinks he has a right to come here and say all manner of outrageous things about our governments’ actions. Talk about an unwelcome guest.
His slick little movie (An Inconvenient Lie?) certainly has grabbed the attention of lots of people and caused the federal opposition parties to suddenly forget every other problem this country faces and come out screaming for changes that could drastically affect our way of life.
Good grief, does nothing else matter anymore? What do you think is Gore’s real motive? Is it absolute altruism? Does he really believe all the stuff he preaches? If so, why does he live in such a large mansion that sucks up power like there’s no tomorrow? Shouldn’t he shut it down and find some more modest accommodation in keeping with what he is recommending to everyone else? By the way, when was the last time you trusted your life to a politician?
Let’s take a moment and ask some uncomfortable questions (for some people anyway).
* Why has the mantra quietly changed from “global warming” to “climate change”? Is it because the real educated climatology experts have seriously shot down that claim?
* What is the dreaded “climate change” anyway? Well, I think there is a better, simpler word for it. It’s called weather and it happens all the time. This is a living planet and as such is constantly changing. For it to stop changing would mean the planet was dead for heaven’s sake.
* Why shouldn’t we eliminate carbon dioxide? Isn’t it poisoning our world? Well, what do you think plants breathe in? Carbon dioxide. And what do they breathe out? Oxygen. We consume the oxygen that comes from plant life. If the plants are deprived of what they need, what will happen to them? They will suffer and ultimately die, of course. And what happens then? We’re next. And so is every other creature on this Earth.
* If we grow lots of corn to produce ethanol, won’t that be a big help?
Well, yes it would reduce our dependency on a finite resource, but there are important questions here, too. What about the poor nations that depend on our excess food production to keep from starving? What about the forests and jungles that of necessity would have to be cut down to make way for the huge corn crops that would be needed? What happens to all the creatures that live in those forests and jungles? Don’t they have a right to live, too? And how much more energy would be needed to actually create the ethanol from the corn?
* Why shouldn’t we try to clean up our environment? We should, absolutely, and the sooner the better. But the problem is not so much carbon dioxide as it is chemical pollution, sulphur dioxide and particulates.
In my humble opinion, our resources would be far better spent on finding ways to clean up the chemicals that truly are the threat to our very existence and on finding ways of creating products that can be easily and totally recycled.
Our waterways and the very air we breathe are under serious attack, not from carbon dioxide, but from all the other things that spew from our chimneys and leach from our dump sites. For years the automotive industry was rightly pilloried for causing pollution, but to their credit they are today building vehicles that are quantum leaps ahead in emission given off.
On the other hand, we have the short-sighted example of a provincial government that won’t install scrubbers on the stacks of generating stations because they won’t stop carbon dioxide!
Hello! Are you politicians listening to yourselves?
There is also the spectre of the fallout to the economy if we blindly follow the disciples of doom. Some claim the new jobs created in “green industries” would make up for the ones lost in other places. Let’s be realistic here … It ain’t gonna happen, people!
And what if one of those lost jobs is yours? How will you and your kids and your family feel about that? Will you just shrug your shoulders and say it’s OK because it’s all for the good of the world, because David Suzuki and Al Gore said so? Good luck to you.
So the bottom line is this. Let’s jump off the bandwagon for a bit and really think this thing through. Let’s look at it with clear heads and not be swayed by rhetoric coming at us from so many directions. Let’s think about what the real problems are with this old world to which we cling so tenuously. Let’s try to find out the real motives behind some people’s agendas.
In other words, let’s try to prove that common sense is not yet dead.
Tom Langdon lives in Ancaster.
By Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday, April 28, 2007
David Suzuki vs. John Baird
One of this country’s most respected environmentalists took his concerns about Ottawa’s greenhouse gas strategy straight to the environment minister.
David Suzuki confronted Environment Minister John Baird in the audience at an environmental consumer show in Toronto on Friday where both were speaking. Suzuki, who cut a path through the crowd to reach the minister, told Baird the regulations announced Thursday were a “disappointment.”
“Apparently, it may have offended the sensibilities of some,” Premier Dalton McGuinty said Friday, referring to the province’s decision to invest $500,000 in a web-based campaign (flickoff.org) that plays on the “f” word in a bid to encourage young people to reduce greenhouse gases by conserving energy. (Source: Canada.com)
Since October I’ve drawn at least 20 editorial cartoons on the environment. I doubt I matched that number in the 9 years previous to October of 2006. Greenhouse warming, global warming, climate change – these are some of the buzz words of the green revolution that have become a part of our daily lives for the last 6 months. How does last year’s #1 priority issue of health care drop completely drop out of the collective mindset this year? The war on terrorism is so last year, and now we’re planted somewhere within an undefined space of time in which we so resolutely battle whatever is meant by the buzz words I mentioned above. “Go green now, or die”, seems to be the mantra accepted by many as this revolution sweeps the – well, modern industrialized world, I guess. Who knows what they’re thinking in certain third and second world nations where rainforests continue to be clearcut at an alarming rate and toxic waste is being spewed into the air and into the water without any thought of regulation. Really, do people here think that by signing onto the Kyoto Accord, China, India, and a number of environmentally comatose regimes in Africa, Asia, and South America, are going to be shamed into signing on for the good of the planet?
An interesting government report was leaked to the Toronto Star which identified three groups of Canadians said to be susceptible to changing their actions to improve the environment:
- The “Suzuki Nation,” making up one-fifth of the population, finds the negative state of the environment in conflict with their values, expresses high environmental concern and is motivated to take action. These are people who would be compelled to act even without offers of tax cuts and other economic incentives designed to change individual behaviour.
- “Invested Materialists” are the 28 per cent of people who do not find the current environmental state in conflict with their values and have low levels of concern. But these people will “act if given the right reason” such as an economic incentive or enhanced social prestige.
- The last category is “Ambivalent Materialists” the 15 per cent of Canadians who feel that a polluted environment is in conflict with their values, but are not concerned about current pollution levels.
Do you know which group you belong to? I think you could add a group above the Suzuki Nation who’ll never be satisfied with any government green plan unless a total ban is imposed on all fossil fuels. In fact, I think some people will never be happy until everyone, including John Baird and Stephen Harper, are forced to go back to nature wearing fig leaves on their naughty bits.
I’d like to suggest another group might be added to the ones above. One representing people who feel the current environmental state is in conflict with their values but understand that the economic sacrifices necessary to meet the Kyoto targets are too great considering barely a dent will be made in reducing global greenhouse gases.
I’d put myself in this last group and to paraphrase a well meaning slogan “think globally, and act locally”, I’d like to see ‘locally’ replaced with ‘continentally’. I think many more strides can be made if Canada, the U.S., and Mexico worked together to cap carbon and sulphur dioxide emissions and effectively monitor what’s being sent into our shared atmosphere. It would probably mean a new administration in the White House, but I think there could be real results other than the all-talk-no-action fantasy that is the Kyoto Accord.
By Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Sunday, April 22, 2007
Report to claim Kyoto would trigger recession
The Conservative government is preparing to table an economically apocalyptic estimate of the Kyoto Accord’s implementation costs to Canada, CTV News has learned.
A leading Canadian environmentalist told The Canadian Press earlier Wednesday that she expects Environment Minister John Baird to present new research to say Canada can’t meet its Kyoto commitment when he appears before a Senate committee on Thursday.
“We expect Mr. Baird to paint a picture of economic collapse if we comply with the Kyoto targets,” said Louise Comeau of the Sage Centre, an environmental think tank.
She said the government has commissioned research based on assumptions that produce astronomical estimated costs.
Robert Fife, CTV’s Ottawa bureau chief, is reporting the following details from the study, which he said has been backed by independent economists:
The economy would shrink by 4.2 per cent if Kyoto is implemented. “It says it will cause a recession on par with the 1981-82 recession.”
Job losses will total 275,000 by 2009
Electricity costs will jump by 50 per cent by 2010
Gasoline costs will jump by 60 per cent almost immediately, and
Home heating oil will double.
Baird told a House of Commons committee in February that attempting to meet Kyoto would be impossible and could lead to economic collapse. (Source: CTV News)