Chiquita, your last post reads a little hostile (eg. "Blue Box Baby")
Listen you f*** a** sucky moderator don't chastize me for your stupid misinterpretation of my post when you don't get off your lazy fat butt to deal with other sucky sexists and nasty posts.
And this post is a little hostile, just so you know the difference.
I don’t consider that a rant, because first I was not mad or fuming when I wrote that post, and second, I merely pointed out areas our government could pursue.
Then don't say electricity if you mean only heating. It is not feasible for any government to spend millions of dollars on promoting personal electric systems that are costly, require extensive operating knowledge in terms of hazardous material and electrical safety. Let alone the cost of inspectors to ensure the safety of the community (ie fire, UV radiation, illegal disposal of battery cells).
Some homes like my parent’s have electric furnaces, that was where I was referring. I didn't attack for bringing up the appliances and in fact I agree with the appliance rebates, but feel it should be taken a step further, that was my point. As for government spending, the government spends millions upon millions in other areas, supporting varies studies in universities, support of research in medicine etc, why not support environmental technology? Already we have people illegally disposing of garbage, they should be fined! As for electrical issues, people can go to the ESA and get their home checked. This is already done on homes so adding a new thing to look at would not cost a huge amount more. As for extensive knowledge to run it... hmm do you have extensive knowledge of your car? How about the furnace in Trarman's home? Breaker system? I do agree that the battery aspect could be a little better, they are working on it. -- oh, so to your knowledge they have done nothing environmentally. It was economical/political change.
In the time period I was referring (1880’s to 1930’s) it was an economical/political/power based reason for the change. Since then Japan has come to face some very serious issues. First, as a small country (only 8% arable land [is that fact? I think so ]) they do not have room for dumps (they do of course dump in the ocean) so they have made some cradle to grave rules for such things as washing machines and dryers where they can be taken apart with one screw driver and the company who builds them owns them when their usefulness is over. Fuel economy is very important and Japanese cars lead the way in that regard. The Japanese are concerned, and rightly so, over their dioxin levels.
"beleive there is an impressive amount of money to be made under environmental auspices. Take for example geothermal heating as mentioned in an earlier thread.Solar power etc."
What are you talking about in terms of revenue? Yes. did not answer the question...
Sorry, I read “were you talking about in terms of revenue.” To answer your question for Canada to be a leader in environmental technology, it must have research and development. Just like the Canadian government spends millions on tourism ads to achieve tourism dollars so should it do so to it should spend on environment. If Canadian companies lead the way, they can then sell their product locally and to other countries and make money.
ok, so you're generally a blue box baby
What have you done? and who do you support?
Green Party:
I never offered any rebuttal regarding how they’ve improved their platform, because quite frankly, my goal is as you’ve said. The effect of 600,000 + votes for the green party is that the main parties, which will most likely always rule, have taken notice and have made the environment a key running platform. Both the liberals and the conservatives. They realize that support for alternative parties will only increase if they do nothing. So, from that standpoint, and from the ultimate goal of having government address the environment, I don’t feel my logic is flawed. Regardless of whether or not I know every facet of the green party platform, I am voting for them, because symbolically, I am making a statement to the main parties.
With that mind set, why not vote for the flying Yogis!!
This is called Strategic voting and is done all the time. Usually, the NDP are the victims of this kind of voting.
I have no idea what Gardasil is. I am very wary of chemical fix to our cancer problems. An ounce of prevention beats a pound of cure…
Gardasil is the new vaccine that prevents 70% of cervical cancer cases caused by certain strains of the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV). HPV is believed to cause 98% of all cervical cancers. HPV remains in the body and negatively affects cell growth. HPV most often is sexually transmitted. Over the last year, Health Canada has recommended that all females between 8 to 26 yrs get the vaccine in order to prevent cervical cancer as over 75% of Canadians will have an HPV infection in their life time. Guidelines for males have not been released to date. I believe the vaccine will become mandatory for school age children shortly. Preventative and chemical!
I am all for reduction of cervical cancer especially since I am married and have a young daughter. Can this drug cure lung cancer? Lymphoma? But, what are the side effects? This is another topic, but if this goes to mandatory then is this not another huge experiment on the population of Canada? No Vaccine is mandatory and to be made so would go against the charter of rights and freedoms.
One could argue that Harper did not win the Election, as he only achieved a minority government. As well, people voted for Harper as retaliation against the Liberals, the environment for the majority was not paramount in the voting choice. (Read Strategic voting)
I did not put all the merit on the Green party, I did point out we are more educated about the environment and, I believe, as a result green party got more votes. So, the main parties see that people will now vote for the environment (rightly or wrongly for the green party) and so now must change. This is what I have wanted all along.
As for how companies will handle fines/incentives to be less wasteful... I think if it costs them money in any way, they'll just move! I believe Hawkeye made the point that it's the bottom line that motivates them. I agree! If they can build it cheaper in another city/province/country due to waste fines where they are, they'll have more incentive to relocate than to clean up.
But, capitalism loves a void, where one company moves out another will move in. Setting the ground rules would benefit us all. Though to be fair I agree, but those companies that would move, I would bet, would move anyway it would only be a matter of time.
I just watched the May interview. She seems very literate and has a long history of environmental activism. Certainly, she's not your average politician in her presenting herself. Tell me Chiquita, you refer to her as the 'Idiotess'. Why? She's quite articulate that's for sure.
To be honest, I guess I was looking for a knock out punch from Mansbridge, when I thought he was light on her.
I don’t consider that a rant, because first I was not mad or fuming when I wrote that post, and second, I merely pointed out areas our government could pursue.
Rant as defined by Wikipedia, as emotional speech or writing usually consisting of complaints or attacks. Rants are partially incoherent, or are buttressed by shallow arguments or logical fallacies.
Some homes like my parent’s have electric furnaces, that was where I was referring. I didn't attack for bringing up the appliances and in fact I agree with the appliance rebates, but feel it should be taken a step further, that was my point. As for government spending, the government spends millions upon millions in other areas, supporting varies studies in universities, support of research in medicine etc, why not support environmental technology? Already we have people illegally disposing of garbage, they should be fined! As for electrical issues, people can go to the ESA and get their home checked. This is already done on homes so adding a new thing to look at would not cost a huge amount more. As for extensive knowledge to run it... hmm do you have extensive knowledge of your car? How about the furnace in Trarman's home? Breaker system? I do agree that the battery aspect could be a little better, they are working on it.
Three words come to mind: common sense, feasibility, and fiscal responsibility. Canada’s population is roughly 32808486. By your method, every home would have solar heating panels on its roof. Assuming that four people live together (about 8202121.5 homes) and your estimated cost of $30000 for a solar system. It would cost $246063645000 to install the systems. One wind turbine costs roughly $130000 and services 250 homes (figures taken From Toronto Hydro Corporation/ Windshare website). That is a cost of $520 per home or total cost $4265103180. The difference between the two methods is $ 241798541820 !! Energy farms for wind (or solar power) would provide required energy levels. The Farms would reduce dependence on nuclear energy and coal without substantial changes or costs to our current energy system. Energy farms are more efficient as the set up and do not require dependence on the existing roof alignment or specific geographical location (ie Northwest Territories in winter). Energy farms could provide an alternative for farmers struggling to make a living as well as maintain jobs for our existing power workers. Money saved by not installing solar panels on every home could be used to pay down national debt, improve preventable medicine, improve health care system or go to further development.
Furthermore, creating a take credit for solar power systems might discriminate against lower income Canadians who might not be able to afford the $30,000. In addition, a power system that has less users is going to have to raise its cost per user to maintain its existing system.
Something being green does not necessarily make it a good idea.
”beleive there is an impressive amount of money to be made under environmental auspices. Take for example geothermal heating as mentioned in an earlier thread. Solar power etc."
What are you talking about in terms of revenue?
Yes.
did not answer the question...
Sorry, I read “were you talking about in terms of revenue.” To answer your question for Canada to be a leader in environmental technology, it must have research and development. Just like the Canadian government spends millions on tourism ads to achieve tourism dollars so should it do so to it should spend on environment. If Canadian companies lead the way, they can then sell their product locally and to other countries and make money.
did not answer the question, again...
I am all for reduction of cervical cancer especially since I am married and have a young daughter. Can this drug cure lung cancer? Lymphoma? But, what are the side effects? This is another topic, but if this goes to mandatory then is this not another huge experiment on the population of Canada? No Vaccine is mandatory and to be made so would go against the charter of rights and freedoms.
Rant as defined by Wikipedia, as emotional speech or writing usually consisting of complaints or attacks. Rants are partially incoherent, or are buttressed by shallow arguments or logical fallacies.
I’ll refer to the oxford dictionary definition: rant: verb, speak or shout [or write] at length in a wild, impassioned way. Besides, who was I attacking? How are my arguments shallow? What is illogical about that post?
Three words come to mind: common sense, feasibility, and fiscal responsibility… … improve health care system or go to further development.
By oxford definition this could be a rant. Taken to an illogical extreme I agree with your figures that the cost would be astronomical. I never said every home, I never said the full cost should be borne by the government, and I never said only solar power. I was giving examples. I agree, wind farms would be great too and I would have no problem with the setup you envisioned. And I am sure there are other technologies which would be beneficial to our environmental woes.
Furthermore, creating a take credit for solar power systems might discriminate against lower income Canadians who might not be able to afford the $30,000. In addition, a power system that has less users is going to have to raise its cost per user to maintain its existing system.
The more investment is made into a particular technology the more the prices come down over time. At first any brand new technology is expensive precisely because it is new, untested fully, and expensive to make. Other examples, (though not limited to these examples) are electronics, improved medical techniques or improved appliances and computers. All of those prices have either come down or, if not, the product’s efficiency increased.
did not answer the question, again...
Perhaps it would help if you’d elaborate on exactly what you’re looking for instead of just saying I did not answer the question.
You’re ignoring the point.
Am I? I don’t think so. There are plenty of people who are concerned with the amount of drugs we take. And I am one of them. To paraphrase your words, just because it may beneficial in one area, doesn’t mean it isn’t a detriment in others.
I’ll refer to the oxford dictionary definition.. I was thinking more along the lines of shallow agruments..well anyway each to his/her own definition
In previous posts, Hawkeye has presented ideas such as the introduction of geothermal and solar technologies to aid Canada in helping the state of the environment. He has stated that Canadian representative should be sent to other nations to investigate practical not theoretical environmental solutions. His previously mentioned methods are theoretically possible in Canada, but in terms of widespread application and the current state of these technologies are not financial feasible or practical without sacrificing money for other programs or incurring substantial personal debt. If Al Gore is correct and we have a 40 year deadline to implement changes to reverse global warming, these changes have to be immediate, widespread, effective, and relatively low cost in order to reach and impact 32 million Canadians.
-----
The more investment is made into a particular technology the more the prices come down over time. At first any brand new technology is expensive precisely because it is new, untested fully, and expensive to make. Other examples, (though not limited to these examples) are electronics, improved medical techniques or improved appliances and computers. All of those prices have either come down or, if not, the product’s efficiency increased.
I'm sorry for the confusion. What I was trying to convey: The price of standard forms of electricity by coal or nuclear will go up, due to less people paying for the maintainence of these services. I think it is likely there will be a timeframe where both new and old forms of electricity production will be costly.
----
did not answer the question, again... I was wanting examples from you where you thought "green" technologies were profitable to back up your statment that you thought a lot of money could be made in that area; and how much money are we talking about and what scale?
---
You’re ignoring the point. A 15% decrease in Canadian cancer rates would be great, but really is not a significant amount..considering the introduction of one new vaccine to the Canadian market can do that. What changes the Green Party is going to introduce to make their 15% target is of significance...From my TU background, I am pretty confident that I could statistically alter the Canadian Cancer rate by 0.15.
In previous posts, Hawkeye has presented ideas such as the introduction of geothermal and solar technologies to aid Canada in helping the state of the environment. He has stated that Canadian representative should be sent to other nations to investigate practical not theoretical environmental solutions. His previously mentioned methods are theoretically possible in Canada, but in terms of widespread application and the current state of these technologies are not financial feasible or practical without sacrificing money for other programs or incurring substantial personal debt. If Al Gore is correct and we have a 40 year deadline to implement changes to reverse global warming, these changes have to be immediate, widespread, effective, and relatively low cost in order to reach and impact 32 million Canadians.
Good luck trying to find any single thing that is “immediate, widespread, effective and relatively low cost.”
I listed a couple examples, and then you tore them apart because I didn’t exhaustively list all examples. You refuted my arguments as much by attacking what I didn’t say as what I did. If we as a world are going to tackle this problem, many solutions will be needed.
FYI, Check out http://www.nextenergysolutions.com/ and see for yourself how feasible georthermal is. This is happening right here in Waterloo. -----
I'm sorry for the confusion. What I was trying to convey: The price of standard forms of electricity by coal or nuclear will go up, due to less people paying for the maintainence of these services. I think it is likely there will be a timeframe where both new and old forms of electricity production will be costly.
I agree that the price of electricity will go up. But, what is the alternative? More nuclear, upkeep of dilapidated powerplants? More coal? Unfortunatley, none of these technologies by themselves would cure our environmental ills.
----
did not answer the question, again... I was wanting examples from you where you thought "green" technologies were profitable to back up your statment that you thought a lot of money could be made in that area; and how much money are we talking about and what scale?
I think we now have the crux of our debate. You are speaking specifically, where I was speaking generally. I have given examples of where government inflow of cash as generated income for the company involved. (Tourism, etc see previous post). My statement was that this principle of putting money into research and development will reap rewards in the future. If we produce something, whatever that something is, better than anyone else, we can sell cheaper and therefore generate income. I know this happens. Japanese steel companies are constantly vilified in the States for flooding their steel products into the US market place. Is the steel any better? No, but it is made far more efficiently. That was my general point. Take that principle and apply it to ‘environmental’ or ‘green’ technologies. They may not be feasible now, but after more research they very likely will be. As for specific revenue, which could be generated, I haven’t a clue, and neither does anyone else.
---
You’re ignoring the point. A 15% decrease in Canadian cancer rates would be great, but really is not a significant amount..considering the introduction of one new vaccine to the Canadian market can do that. What changes the Green Party is going to introduce to make their 15% target is of significance...From my TU background, I am pretty confident that I could statistically alter the Canadian Cancer rate by 0.15.
One could do pretty much anything if you draw on a sampling small enough, or narrow enough. As far as the green party is concerned I have gone over their 2006 platform, and while they are different in terms of grass roots hoopla, they are the same as any other political party with grand statements of vision for the country, yet thin on actual substance. But, again, that is not why I voted for them.
I have yet to get an answer to what you do for the environment, and who you support.
Elizabeth May is an accidental Canadian, born (1954) in Hartford, Connecticut, to a rich American family. The family lost their money and were forced to move to Cape Breton, Nova Scotia (in 1972 and they opened a giftshop/restaurant). She became a canadian out of necessity in 1978.
Elizabeth May remains heavily involved in American Politics, notably having backed by campaigning/fundrasing for George Mcgovern, Eugene McCarthy, and Bill Clinton. In addition Elizabeth May, was an environmental advisor in Brian Mulroney's conservative government. Her politcal views and ties are almost exculsively conservative in nature.
After having viewed Elizabeth May repeatedly in the news and on Rick Mercer Report [under October 17, 2006, http://www.cbc.ca/mercerreport/backissues.php ] Elizabeth May gives the impression of being a middle age uneducated housewife with the language of her sixteen year old daughter. For example, she has used the following expressions: "rock this country's politics in a way no other party ever has" or overusing "a force". She does not give the impression of having a charisma or fortitude to lead a nation but rather someone who would have trouble organizing a cookie bake sale.
During the London by election, Elizabeth Mat recent stance on abortion at the Sister of St. Joseph in London was disgusting ignorant and I quote "I'm against abortion. I don't think a woman has a frivolous right to choose". I think this is a sad comment from someone who was an assistant Professor in Women's Health and Environment at Dalhousie University in 1998. And quite frankly, all the grovelling she is doing to regain her popularity with feminists is tiresome and far too late. Frankly, it makes her look pathetic. She wrote an open letter to Judith Rebick (prodominent canadian feminist who had offered the Green Party financial support)that was quite filled with debating nuances on the issue and judgementalism on the issue; i don't understand why she could have not simply said:"I have a personal problem with abortion, as do many other people, but from first to last I will defend all women's right to full access to safe abortions." She is a leader of a party that supports abortion..she represents others, she should have towed the line. You just can't have a nuanced discussion about people's rights, if she wanted to have a nuanced discussion about slavery, that's her right, but I'd be damn worried about it.
I have yet to get an answer to what you do for the environment, and who you support
I don't do anything for the environment nor do I support any federal party. I was merely challenging your beliefs/statements/actions and yanking your chain a bit, but it appears that I have taken it too far...so I apologize to you and Trarman for any offense I have caused.
I figured you were playing devil's advocate, but enjoyed the sparing none-the-less. No harm done or felt. Though, I must admit, being told I rant was a good hook I think that when a person reads an email, they tend to put tone and an emotion into emails where none was intended. So, frankly, I tried to not read any tone, just the words and spar at what was written.
Globe and Mail reported today that the Conservatives are losing the damage control game with regards to the environment and Canadian mission in Afganistan. Precious Harper sound bits from December where he disparagingly refer to global warming as 'so-called climate change' and his parties sudden change from the earth is flat society to green agents of change has not gone unnoticed by the Canadian population. Globe and Mail report that there was vigourous dissension in the last caucus meeting. The Bloc Quebecois and the Liberal Party of Canada appear to be leading the attack and threaten to disolve the conservative government. Reportely, support for the war on Afganistan is lowest in Quebec. In announcement today, Stephen Dion is calling for public meetings to be held with regards to Canada's role. The issues appears to revolve around the total lack of balance between the military component of the mission versus the development aid component of the mission versus the diplomacy component of the mission.
I think the conservatives will do as much as possible to stay an election, because if one is held soon, they will not be in control afterwards. So, what does that leave? To garner support for the environment he'll have to lean on the NDP, and NDP will want some results as Jack Layton has emphasized. What will be interesting to see is if the two leaders can apply their kindergarden sandbox lessons to parliament, ie learn to play together.
RE: Afghanistan
Support for any war or fighting is ALWAYS lowest in Quebec.
I do think there should be more development. But, in order to be able to accomplish that the area must be secured. The concervatives find themselves caught betwen iraq and a hard place () Because they have inherited this fiasco from the former liberal government and are left with cleaning it up.
As far as the next election is concerned I really don't think any party wants to be labeled with having forced a 3rd election in 3 years!
I've now seen a conservative attack ad targeting Dion. In it Ignatief and Dion are duking it out over the environment. Dion, almost in a whiney voice, retorts with 'That's not Fair.' To be fair, he was just a minister and Chretien and Martin did not have the environment as their focus. I suspect, with Dion now as the leader the conservatives must attack his credibility on the environment, because they have absolutely none. Smoke and mirrors... or a good offense is a good defence.
I will be interested in seeing how Dion and the Liberals counter these ads, if at all. I wonder if the conservatives are going to campaign mode now because their hopes for delaying an election are almost used up.
Home
Calendar
Search
Register
Login
Print Thread
Report to Moderator
Logged
E-mail
Private message
]) they do not have room for dumps (they do of course dump in the ocean) so they have made some cradle to grave rules for such things as washing machines and dryers where they can be taken apart with one screw driver and the company who builds them owns them when their usefulness is over. Fuel economy is very important and Japanese cars lead the way in that regard. The Japanese are concerned, and rightly so, over their dioxin levels.
I've only just begun.
