Our leaders may not want to talk about the environmental cataclysm setting in around the world but those living with it are more than willing to talk.
I've been exchanging e-mails recently with an elderly Indian woman, a well-educated and highly intelligent individual. She's eager to discuss what lies in store for her fellow countrymen and mankind in general as they confront the challenges that can no longer be avoided.
Perhaps the greatest problem facing Indians today is disruption of their freshwater resources. They're now experiencing a triple-whammy. The Himalayan glaciers, whose headwaters supply India's key agricultural rivers, are in headlong retreat. As National Public Radio reported a couple of months ago, India's "green revolution" is beginning to teeter because it relied of massive overexploitation of the country's groundwater reserves. Now it's the missing monsoon.
The life-giving monsoon ought to have arrived five weeks ago but the Pacific has just been hit by a massive El Nino so much larger and different than previous El Ninos that they've renamed it El Nino Modoki. These ocean phenomenon usually disrupt rainfall to places like India and Australia. The Sydney Morning Herald reports alarm is spreading through India:
There are reports that monsoon-dependent crops in the north of the country have already been spoiled because of very hot weather and a lack of rain. Fears of a below-par monsoon in some of the most important farming districts have triggered a sharp rise in fruit and vegetable prices. This threatens to hit poor families the hardest.
The Meteorological Department, which issues a daily monsoon report, says the monsoon made a comeback last week but it admits rain has been "scanty" in some of the most productive food growing areas.
The fitful monsoon has created havoc in India's biggest city, Mumbai. Over the past fortnight the metropolis has been plunged into chaos by flash-flooding caused by heavy downpours. However, a lack of rainfall in the city's catchment areas has created a critical water shortage.
Mumbai's civic authority is so worried that it imposed a 30 per cent cut in town water last week and has stopped supplying water to non-essential services such as swimming pools.
There are reports the city may have only 20 days of water left unless the catchment areas receive more rain.
While Mumbai may have only 20-days of water stocks remaining, my friend, Salima, tells me that many smaller cities ran out of water in early April. Residents there who can afford it have to buy water that's trucked in which means water for drinking and perhaps some for cooking but none for sanitation or hygiene. It doesn't take much imagination to figure out what that will mean if this continues even for a matter of months longer.
India's government, however, is still forging ahead and is targetting for economic growth this year of 5%. What I'm told suggests they're running on autopilot.
To give you a clearer grasp of India's predicament, consider this from The Guardian:
It was a little after 8pm when the water started flowing through the pipe running beneath the dirt streets of Bhopal's Sanjay Nagar slum. After days without a drop of water, the Malviya family were the first to reach the hole they had drilled in the pipe, filling what containers they had as quickly as they could. Within minutes, three of them were dead, hacked to death by angry neighbours who accused them of stealing water.
In Bhopal, and across much of northern India, a late monsoon and the driest June for 83 years are exacerbating the effects of a widespread drought and setting neighbour against neighbour in a desperate fight for survival.
...In Bhopal, where 100,000 people rely solely on the water tankers that shuttle across the city, fights break out regularly. In the Pushpa Nagar slum, the arrival of the first tanker for two days prompted a frantic scramble, with men jostling women and children in their determination to get to the precious liquid first.
Young men scrambled on to the back of the tanker, jamming green plastic pipes through the hole on the top, passing them down to their wives or mothers waiting on the ground to siphon the water off into whatever they had managed to find: old cooking oil containers were popular, but even paint pots were pressed into service. A few children crawled beneath the tanker in the hope of catching the spillage.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/12/india-water-supply-bhopal
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Steve to Benny - It's Wafer Time
Gee yer Holiness, thanks for this awful swell pen. But look what I got for you - a wafer! Picked it up the other day just for you, special like.
All I Want From Michael Ignatieff
He's the leader of the Official Opposition and therefore it's his job to press the government to do necessary things it hasn't done or at least point out what the government has failed to do.
I want Mr. Ignatieff to bring every bit of pressure he can muster on the Harper government to do a very simple thing the British government did for its people just last month. Very simple but of enormous potential importance.
In June, Britain's environment secretary released a report on how much climate change is in store for that country based on existing carbon emissions. No hocus-pocus stuff speculating on what might or might not happen to slash greenhouse gas emissions in ten years or twenty years or forty years. Just a hardnosed, realistic look at what's almost certainly coming.
The report indicated that, by 2080, about every place in Britain will reach the two degree threshhold that we keep talking about. It also noted that some parts in the south, including London itself, could see temperature increases upwards of six degrees celsius.
The idea behind releasing that report was to get the population and their local governments thinking about their future environment so that they could begin to plan and prepare for it. By looking at a conservative estimate for 2080 you can work back to identify what might arrive by 2030 or 2050. Those are real numbers for much of the population. Then they can begin to examine and implement their options for adaptation and remediation.
We're not going to get that sort of potentially lifesaving information from our environment experts because Stephen Harper has their ministry effectively gagged. We'll get whatever climate change information he wants to give us and, based on what he's given us so far, that's a lot of nothing.
Somebody has to tear that gag off our best scientists at Environment Canada and who is more responsible for leading that battle than the leader of the opposition? Nobody. It's Michael Ignatieff's job to do just that and Britain's environment secretary has given our opposition a very powerful weapon to turn on Stephen Harper. Why can't the Canadian government do at least as much for our people as the British government has done for theirs? By what right does Stephen Harper choose to keep Canadians uninformed, even misinformed about this?
We're a big country. We have many regional environments and we'll all be affected somewhat differently. We have coastal environments, southern and northern, a mountainous region, a vast prairie, the Canadian Shield, and the Great Lakes basin. None of these is going to experience the same conditions. While we may have differing local environments, we are one people and we deserve to start getting some straight answers. Not political answers, scientific answers.
I want Mr. Ignatieff to bring every bit of pressure he can muster on the Harper government to do a very simple thing the British government did for its people just last month. Very simple but of enormous potential importance.
In June, Britain's environment secretary released a report on how much climate change is in store for that country based on existing carbon emissions. No hocus-pocus stuff speculating on what might or might not happen to slash greenhouse gas emissions in ten years or twenty years or forty years. Just a hardnosed, realistic look at what's almost certainly coming.
The report indicated that, by 2080, about every place in Britain will reach the two degree threshhold that we keep talking about. It also noted that some parts in the south, including London itself, could see temperature increases upwards of six degrees celsius.
The idea behind releasing that report was to get the population and their local governments thinking about their future environment so that they could begin to plan and prepare for it. By looking at a conservative estimate for 2080 you can work back to identify what might arrive by 2030 or 2050. Those are real numbers for much of the population. Then they can begin to examine and implement their options for adaptation and remediation.
We're not going to get that sort of potentially lifesaving information from our environment experts because Stephen Harper has their ministry effectively gagged. We'll get whatever climate change information he wants to give us and, based on what he's given us so far, that's a lot of nothing.
Somebody has to tear that gag off our best scientists at Environment Canada and who is more responsible for leading that battle than the leader of the opposition? Nobody. It's Michael Ignatieff's job to do just that and Britain's environment secretary has given our opposition a very powerful weapon to turn on Stephen Harper. Why can't the Canadian government do at least as much for our people as the British government has done for theirs? By what right does Stephen Harper choose to keep Canadians uninformed, even misinformed about this?
We're a big country. We have many regional environments and we'll all be affected somewhat differently. We have coastal environments, southern and northern, a mountainous region, a vast prairie, the Canadian Shield, and the Great Lakes basin. None of these is going to experience the same conditions. While we may have differing local environments, we are one people and we deserve to start getting some straight answers. Not political answers, scientific answers.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
CanWest and the Norwegian Blue
Izzy Asper built CanWest into a media empire with a book value of two billion dollars.
Izzy's gone, Lenny's at the helm and CanWest is now worth (optimistically) all of seven million dollars. When you're in hock to your creditors to the tune of four billion dollars, seven million book value isn't such a good thing.
CanWest has just announced a net loss of 110-million or 62 cents a share for the quarter ended May 31. Globeinvestor.com showed Canwest shares opening yesterday at at 7 cents, hitting a low of 5.5 cents and closing at 11-cents.
Asper, reprising the role of Michael Palin in the pet shop, is struggling bravely to convince CanWest's creditors that the company is alive, unlike that Norwegian Blue parrot.
Izzy's gone, Lenny's at the helm and CanWest is now worth (optimistically) all of seven million dollars. When you're in hock to your creditors to the tune of four billion dollars, seven million book value isn't such a good thing.
CanWest has just announced a net loss of 110-million or 62 cents a share for the quarter ended May 31. Globeinvestor.com showed Canwest shares opening yesterday at at 7 cents, hitting a low of 5.5 cents and closing at 11-cents.
Asper, reprising the role of Michael Palin in the pet shop, is struggling bravely to convince CanWest's creditors that the company is alive, unlike that Norwegian Blue parrot.
Friday, July 10, 2009
This is Rich. The Guy Who Took a Dump on Canada's Kyoto Commitments Calls other G8 Members Slackers.
The man is a tool, a complete tool. I guess he's got his nearest and dearest much too terrified to intervene and hand him a mirror. It's obvious from how he surrounds himself with bellicose arrogant flakes like Dimitri Soudas, specimens from a proctology lecture lab.
Now, having screwed this country and all Canadians three way to his 6,000-year old Sunday with his economics acumen and having done everything in his power to sabotage our promise to the rest of the world in the Kyoto Accords, this self-styled "brightest man in the room" has decided to castigate other G8 leaders for, oh yeah, not delivering on promised aid to the world's poor and hungry.
Apparently oblivious to the fact that the greatest threat facing the weakest, poorest and least advantaged is the onslaught of climate change (think Tar Sands, Tar Sands, Tar Sands) the engorged sphincter on legs complained that Western leaders, "make commitments and we don't fulfil them. This undercuts the credibility of our process."
Excuse me but isn't this the same butthole who promised Canadians open and accountable government among so many other promises that now lie broken discarded like so many plastic bags and empty beer bottles in the Baja. I think the other G8 leaders might have noticed how Harpo soiled his own diaper today in his inane attack of Ignatieff. Chances are they've already dismissed SHPM as an empty suit, chump change.
Now, having screwed this country and all Canadians three way to his 6,000-year old Sunday with his economics acumen and having done everything in his power to sabotage our promise to the rest of the world in the Kyoto Accords, this self-styled "brightest man in the room" has decided to castigate other G8 leaders for, oh yeah, not delivering on promised aid to the world's poor and hungry.
Apparently oblivious to the fact that the greatest threat facing the weakest, poorest and least advantaged is the onslaught of climate change (think Tar Sands, Tar Sands, Tar Sands) the engorged sphincter on legs complained that Western leaders, "make commitments and we don't fulfil them. This undercuts the credibility of our process."
Excuse me but isn't this the same butthole who promised Canadians open and accountable government among so many other promises that now lie broken discarded like so many plastic bags and empty beer bottles in the Baja. I think the other G8 leaders might have noticed how Harpo soiled his own diaper today in his inane attack of Ignatieff. Chances are they've already dismissed SHPM as an empty suit, chump change.
Mmm, mmm, mmm - Three Hour Ribs!
I don't eat much meat. Pork mainly, beef rarely. I tend to stick with fish and chicken most of the year. Then summer arrives and everything goes straight to hell.
I love to barbeque. I fell off the wagon and wound up with a gas grill until my old CBC buddy (now CTV) Paul Workman gave me a proper dressing down over it, reminding me of our more aesthetic grilling days when we were frequently besotted young reporters. So, out went the gas bottle and in came the Weber kettle.
I'm not a snob but I do know the difference between properly kiln-charred 'lump' charcoal and that processed crap mixed with powdered coal and petroleum by-products that we call briquettes. Fortunately Canadian Tire stocks a generous supply of real charcoal, the type your Dad would have used (if you were a kid in the 50's).
A barbeque is all about spice. I make my own with an old-school mortar and pestle and a variety of herbs including unground mustard seed, fennel, chile seeds, cardomom, and an array of black, red and white pepper corns. A little kosher salt, some brown sugar, real gourmet chile powders, fresh cumin and top grade Hungarian paprika and the universe literally unfolds.
Then it's the fire, the secret ingredient - the magic. You want heat but it has to be indirect heat and very, very low. Under 180 is the key. That requires a lot of trial and error until you get to know how to build that fire and get it to just that right point. That's a perfect storm requiring the right amount of coals at the right point and continually controlled by regulating both the air intake and the upper vents.
A couple of hours before I'm ready to put meat on the grill I begin soaking the wood chips - mesquite or hickory or apple (the latter mainly for fish). When I'm ready to go, the chips go on the coals immediately before the meat reaches the grill. Then I put on the kettle top, adjust the vents and marvel at the smoke that pours out carrying that awesome aroma.
Now to do this right you have to check your fire every 20-30 minutes. You don't want it hot but you have to be careful lest it go out. Once you're through the first round, all that's needed is to add twigs from any one of the fruit trees in the yard. The last ten minutes, when the fire has really died down, it's time to add your homemade barbeque sauce and let it set in under the remaining heat and smoke.
Three hours later and it's time to reap what you have sowed. Ribs that are so moist, so tender that they genuinely do fall off the bone. You could eat that even if you had no teeth. And I can't even begin to describe the texture. The stuff melts.
So, tomorrow's another day. Maybe Beer Can Chicken? Pretty hard to beat that.
As an aside, I have done 5-hour ribs - more smoke, less heat and even 7-hour ribs. Unfortunately I'm not able to appreciate the difference. Three it is for me.
I love to barbeque. I fell off the wagon and wound up with a gas grill until my old CBC buddy (now CTV) Paul Workman gave me a proper dressing down over it, reminding me of our more aesthetic grilling days when we were frequently besotted young reporters. So, out went the gas bottle and in came the Weber kettle.
I'm not a snob but I do know the difference between properly kiln-charred 'lump' charcoal and that processed crap mixed with powdered coal and petroleum by-products that we call briquettes. Fortunately Canadian Tire stocks a generous supply of real charcoal, the type your Dad would have used (if you were a kid in the 50's).
A barbeque is all about spice. I make my own with an old-school mortar and pestle and a variety of herbs including unground mustard seed, fennel, chile seeds, cardomom, and an array of black, red and white pepper corns. A little kosher salt, some brown sugar, real gourmet chile powders, fresh cumin and top grade Hungarian paprika and the universe literally unfolds.
Then it's the fire, the secret ingredient - the magic. You want heat but it has to be indirect heat and very, very low. Under 180 is the key. That requires a lot of trial and error until you get to know how to build that fire and get it to just that right point. That's a perfect storm requiring the right amount of coals at the right point and continually controlled by regulating both the air intake and the upper vents.
A couple of hours before I'm ready to put meat on the grill I begin soaking the wood chips - mesquite or hickory or apple (the latter mainly for fish). When I'm ready to go, the chips go on the coals immediately before the meat reaches the grill. Then I put on the kettle top, adjust the vents and marvel at the smoke that pours out carrying that awesome aroma.
Now to do this right you have to check your fire every 20-30 minutes. You don't want it hot but you have to be careful lest it go out. Once you're through the first round, all that's needed is to add twigs from any one of the fruit trees in the yard. The last ten minutes, when the fire has really died down, it's time to add your homemade barbeque sauce and let it set in under the remaining heat and smoke.
Three hours later and it's time to reap what you have sowed. Ribs that are so moist, so tender that they genuinely do fall off the bone. You could eat that even if you had no teeth. And I can't even begin to describe the texture. The stuff melts.
So, tomorrow's another day. Maybe Beer Can Chicken? Pretty hard to beat that.
As an aside, I have done 5-hour ribs - more smoke, less heat and even 7-hour ribs. Unfortunately I'm not able to appreciate the difference. Three it is for me.
Something to Think About
This map shows the 10 least-densely populated countries in the world. Eight of the ten lie in regions that are expected to be particularly hard-hit by climte change. Hmm, that big, green one looks interesting.
Is Afghanistan Facing Revolt?
Forget about the Taliban and al Qaeda. This concerns ordinary Afghans and their anger toward their central government and, in particular, Hamid Karzai.
Afghans go to the polls next month to elect their president and Karzai is considered a shoo-in. That's got the American commander responsible for taming the southern provinces of Logar and Wardak warning of a possible, popular revolt. From The Guardian:
"I think the people down here are disgruntled with the government because there feeling is, look, 'I'm just right to the south, I'm frigging 40 miles away and you couldn't help me?'" said [Colonel David] Haight.
"I think that apathy is going to turn into some anger because when the administration doesn't change, and I don't think anyone believes now that Karzai is going to lose ... I think there is going to be frustration from people who realise there is not going to be a change. The bottom line is they are going to be thinking: 'four more years of this crap?'" Haight said.
...Widely blamed for much of the corruption in modern Afghanistan, Karzai has nonetheless succeeded in gaining the support of most of the country's most important ethnic and tribal power-brokers, including a number of unsavoury characters accused of human rights violations.
...There are also concerns about the independence of the election commission, which opponents accuse Karzai of stacking with loyalists.
Ashraf Ghani, former finance minister once tipped as a replacement for Kofi Annan as UN secretary general, is one of two leading opposition candidates. He is about to hit the campaign trail, but has limited access to television, no official protection, and no helicopter. He echoed Haight's view that the Karzai administration had failed to deliver on security: "In 2001 the Afghan people expected state-building and received bad governance and corruption. Now as a result of the failure of this government and international community, they are demonstrating again the desire for legitimate and accountable state institutions."
You don't have to go too far back in time to recall another nation wrestling with an insurgency and beset by a corrupt and detested government. It was popular discontent that kept the government of South Vietnam from ever consolidating its hold on the country, hastening its collapse.
Afghans go to the polls next month to elect their president and Karzai is considered a shoo-in. That's got the American commander responsible for taming the southern provinces of Logar and Wardak warning of a possible, popular revolt. From The Guardian:
"I think the people down here are disgruntled with the government because there feeling is, look, 'I'm just right to the south, I'm frigging 40 miles away and you couldn't help me?'" said [Colonel David] Haight.
"I think that apathy is going to turn into some anger because when the administration doesn't change, and I don't think anyone believes now that Karzai is going to lose ... I think there is going to be frustration from people who realise there is not going to be a change. The bottom line is they are going to be thinking: 'four more years of this crap?'" Haight said.
...Widely blamed for much of the corruption in modern Afghanistan, Karzai has nonetheless succeeded in gaining the support of most of the country's most important ethnic and tribal power-brokers, including a number of unsavoury characters accused of human rights violations.
...There are also concerns about the independence of the election commission, which opponents accuse Karzai of stacking with loyalists.
Ashraf Ghani, former finance minister once tipped as a replacement for Kofi Annan as UN secretary general, is one of two leading opposition candidates. He is about to hit the campaign trail, but has limited access to television, no official protection, and no helicopter. He echoed Haight's view that the Karzai administration had failed to deliver on security: "In 2001 the Afghan people expected state-building and received bad governance and corruption. Now as a result of the failure of this government and international community, they are demonstrating again the desire for legitimate and accountable state institutions."
You don't have to go too far back in time to recall another nation wrestling with an insurgency and beset by a corrupt and detested government. It was popular discontent that kept the government of South Vietnam from ever consolidating its hold on the country, hastening its collapse.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Farewell Athabasca
Steve and Mike may think the Athabasca Tar Sands are pivotal to Canadian prosperity through the 21st century but not if what Steve was sincere in joining other G8 leaders on global warming.
An 80% cut in carbon emissions by 2050. Let's face it - there is no way, none, that we're going to meet that promise without breaking our addiction to fossil fuels. Sorry Steve, Sorry Mike -- they've got to go. Leave the damned bitumen in the ground.
According to BBC News, reaching that target will require revolutionary change.
The commitment by G8 nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050 suggests that the leaders of those nations are serious about starting a fundamental revolution in the way society meets its energy needs.
Nothing else than a top-to-bottom refit can do the job.
Virtually all electricity generation will have to come from renewables, nuclear power or so-called "clean" coal - if that technology can be made to work on a commercial scale.
The amount of electricity generated in Western countries will have to rise significantly - doubling or even trebling - as transport and the heating systems for homes and businesses switch away from fossil fuels.
Alongside a re-fuelling revolution would go a frugality revolution, as societies put an end to energy wastage.
The article points out that politicians usually don't get around to any tangible action on targets that are 40-years off. This problem is unique because you can't introduce changes of this magnitude without decades of preparation and progress.
Steve's promise spells an end to any nonsense about "intensity based" emissions reductions for the Tar Sands. That has to be totally ruled out. There's no way you can increase emissions for the dirtiest energy project on the planet and slash overall emissions 80% within just two generations.
And Mike - just treat the Tar Sands like asbestos - don't worry about the flip-flops - just say "no."
An 80% cut in carbon emissions by 2050. Let's face it - there is no way, none, that we're going to meet that promise without breaking our addiction to fossil fuels. Sorry Steve, Sorry Mike -- they've got to go. Leave the damned bitumen in the ground.
According to BBC News, reaching that target will require revolutionary change.
The commitment by G8 nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050 suggests that the leaders of those nations are serious about starting a fundamental revolution in the way society meets its energy needs.
Nothing else than a top-to-bottom refit can do the job.
Virtually all electricity generation will have to come from renewables, nuclear power or so-called "clean" coal - if that technology can be made to work on a commercial scale.
The amount of electricity generated in Western countries will have to rise significantly - doubling or even trebling - as transport and the heating systems for homes and businesses switch away from fossil fuels.
Alongside a re-fuelling revolution would go a frugality revolution, as societies put an end to energy wastage.
The article points out that politicians usually don't get around to any tangible action on targets that are 40-years off. This problem is unique because you can't introduce changes of this magnitude without decades of preparation and progress.
Steve's promise spells an end to any nonsense about "intensity based" emissions reductions for the Tar Sands. That has to be totally ruled out. There's no way you can increase emissions for the dirtiest energy project on the planet and slash overall emissions 80% within just two generations.
And Mike - just treat the Tar Sands like asbestos - don't worry about the flip-flops - just say "no."
What Does It Take to Get Harper to a Photo Shoot?
Once again Steve has done it - left fellow world leaders standing around waiting for him to show up to a group photo shoot. So, what's it going to take to get Steve to show up on time? Maybe he needs something like this:
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
It's a Record
Found this over at CBC News. A guy named Mark Malkoff set a world record for the greatest number of flights in a span of 30-days. Malkoff did this by literally living aboard a US regional carrier, Air Tran aircraft and logging between five and a dozen flights a day. So what do you do when you're living on a commuter plane for a month? This clip gives you an idea.
What Are You Doing in 2080?
Relax, I'm pretty sure you're not going to be doing anything in 2080 other than relying on some relative to pull the weeds at your grave.
But in Britain, they are talking about what they'll be doing in 2080 or at least what the next generations of Britons will be doing. That's because the British government has released its annual report warning its citizens of what they can expect by 2080 and urging them to begin planning and preparing for it.
For example, the Brits are warning their public that the country will be at least two degrees warmer by 2080 with parts in the south, including London, upwards of six degrees warmer. That, by the way, is a lot of "warmer."
The British government knows what your government knows. They know that climate change on a serious scale is inevitable and they know that defining and implementing effective measures for adaptation and remediation is a multi-generational challenge.
Telling people what's coming in 2080 allows them to work out, with some accuracy, what changes they can expect along the way. That's because today's generation of Britons needs to know what they'll be dealing with in 2040 and 2060.
So, here's the question. What has your government told you to expect by 2080 where you live in Grand Prairie, Alberta or Dauphin, Manitoba or Port Hope, Ontario or Miramichi, New Brunswick? I know what they've told you because I know what they've told me - nothing.
So here's the next question. Why hasn't your government taken the obvious step of telling you what your area should expect and begin planning for in 2080 and 2040 and 2060? Why indeed? Why haven't the opposition parties been demanding, furiously insisting the government do just that? Why have they stood mute on this while feeding you a crockpot full of garbage about bitumen and national unity?
Maybe they don't want to discuss this with you because they have a pretty good idea of how you might react. Maybe they see this as an unwelcome problem they would just prefer to move down the road, to leave for somebody else to clean up.
Why do we see the Europeans as so strident on slashing global carbon emissions right now? What's with that anyway? It's really quite simple. The Euros don't have to look to the horizon for signs of the approach of global warming. It's already arrived. It's real, tangible. The closer you get to the Mediterranean the more tangible it becomes.
Take Greece, for example. It's forest fire season has expanded by six weeks. The country is beset by the double whammy of heatwaves and drought. Northern Europe is getting wetter, southern Europe is drying out. Several months ago the Greek minister of tourism lamented that his country was becoming unsuitable for visitors during the summer months. Greek agriculture has taken a hard hit. The country has explored options including later planting and alternate crops. Unfortunately the alternates need 40% more water which is problematical when you're confronted with a sustained drought.
Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece are all losing arable farmland to desertification. You don't have to convince these people about global warming, they live it.
So here's a final question. If London, capital of an island nation whose climate is moderated by surrounding seas, is facing a 6 degree temperature increase by 2080, what do you think lies in store for you folks from Toronto and Winnipeg and Calgary by 2080? Do you even want to know?
But in Britain, they are talking about what they'll be doing in 2080 or at least what the next generations of Britons will be doing. That's because the British government has released its annual report warning its citizens of what they can expect by 2080 and urging them to begin planning and preparing for it.
For example, the Brits are warning their public that the country will be at least two degrees warmer by 2080 with parts in the south, including London, upwards of six degrees warmer. That, by the way, is a lot of "warmer."
The British government knows what your government knows. They know that climate change on a serious scale is inevitable and they know that defining and implementing effective measures for adaptation and remediation is a multi-generational challenge.
Telling people what's coming in 2080 allows them to work out, with some accuracy, what changes they can expect along the way. That's because today's generation of Britons needs to know what they'll be dealing with in 2040 and 2060.
So, here's the question. What has your government told you to expect by 2080 where you live in Grand Prairie, Alberta or Dauphin, Manitoba or Port Hope, Ontario or Miramichi, New Brunswick? I know what they've told you because I know what they've told me - nothing.
So here's the next question. Why hasn't your government taken the obvious step of telling you what your area should expect and begin planning for in 2080 and 2040 and 2060? Why indeed? Why haven't the opposition parties been demanding, furiously insisting the government do just that? Why have they stood mute on this while feeding you a crockpot full of garbage about bitumen and national unity?
Maybe they don't want to discuss this with you because they have a pretty good idea of how you might react. Maybe they see this as an unwelcome problem they would just prefer to move down the road, to leave for somebody else to clean up.
Why do we see the Europeans as so strident on slashing global carbon emissions right now? What's with that anyway? It's really quite simple. The Euros don't have to look to the horizon for signs of the approach of global warming. It's already arrived. It's real, tangible. The closer you get to the Mediterranean the more tangible it becomes.
Take Greece, for example. It's forest fire season has expanded by six weeks. The country is beset by the double whammy of heatwaves and drought. Northern Europe is getting wetter, southern Europe is drying out. Several months ago the Greek minister of tourism lamented that his country was becoming unsuitable for visitors during the summer months. Greek agriculture has taken a hard hit. The country has explored options including later planting and alternate crops. Unfortunately the alternates need 40% more water which is problematical when you're confronted with a sustained drought.
Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece are all losing arable farmland to desertification. You don't have to convince these people about global warming, they live it.
So here's a final question. If London, capital of an island nation whose climate is moderated by surrounding seas, is facing a 6 degree temperature increase by 2080, what do you think lies in store for you folks from Toronto and Winnipeg and Calgary by 2080? Do you even want to know?
The Taliban Relocate
The only thing surprising is that anyone should be surprised. Afghan defence officials have told McClatchey Newspapers that the recent American offensive in Helmand province has succeeded - in moving the Taliban to relocate. Like all good little insurgents they've simply moved, this time to the east and the north.
Why should this outcome have been so obvious? Well, what would have been the alternative? The only option the Taliban had was to stand and fight with WWII vintage assault rifles and rocket propelled grenades against American strike fighters, attack helicopters, drones, artillery and tanks. That really doesn't sound too enticing, does it? Especially not when you can hand the Americans a tactical defeat by simply walking away.
It will be interesting to see how long the Americans stick to their promise to "hold" Helmand province. It takes a lot of people to hold turf in an insurgency, a lot of people that neither NATO nor the United States have in Afghanistan. Even with the additional 17,000 troops sent by Obama, they're left with a small force for the job they've been given.
I'm sure the Taliban would be quite content if the Americans want to tie down their new force in static positions in Helmand. Keep in mind that the Taliban's long game is to simply outwait the Westerners.
Why should this outcome have been so obvious? Well, what would have been the alternative? The only option the Taliban had was to stand and fight with WWII vintage assault rifles and rocket propelled grenades against American strike fighters, attack helicopters, drones, artillery and tanks. That really doesn't sound too enticing, does it? Especially not when you can hand the Americans a tactical defeat by simply walking away.
It will be interesting to see how long the Americans stick to their promise to "hold" Helmand province. It takes a lot of people to hold turf in an insurgency, a lot of people that neither NATO nor the United States have in Afghanistan. Even with the additional 17,000 troops sent by Obama, they're left with a small force for the job they've been given.
I'm sure the Taliban would be quite content if the Americans want to tie down their new force in static positions in Helmand. Keep in mind that the Taliban's long game is to simply outwait the Westerners.
Spying on Ice
NASA has released satellite measurements of the thickness of Arctic sea ice, comparing 2004 to 2008. From The Guardian:
The Earth is going thin on top. A new study has revealed that the Arctic Ocean's permanent blanket of ice around the North Pole has thinned by more than 40% since 2004.
Scientists said the rapid loss was "remarkable" and could force experts to reassess how quickly the Arctic ice in the summer may disappear completely. They blame the loss on global warming, which has driven temperatures in the Arctic to record highs and summer ice extent to recent lows.
...Ron Kwok, senior research scientist at Nasa's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California, said: "Even in years when the overall extent of sea ice remains stable or grows slightly, the thickness and volume of the ice cover is continuing to decline, making the ice more vulnerable to continued shrinkage."
Selling Us Out in L'Aquila
They've done it. The major greenhouse gas emitters, including China and India, have killed off an effort for a 50 per cent cut in carbon emissions by 2050. From AFP news service:
Major polluting nations watered down their ambitions to tackle global warming at a G8 summit in Italy on Wednesday despite growing pressure to set tough targets to cut pollution.
The Group of Eight leading industrialised nations and other major economies -- including China and India -- dropped a pledge to halve global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, a European Union official said.
"There is indeed a very strong commitment to identify the global goal for substantially reducing global emissions by 2050, but there is no 50 percent" mentioned in a draft declaration, the official said on condition of anonymity.
Leaders face mounting pressure to make ambitious commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions at the summit in L'Aquila with the clock ticking for a key December meeting in Copenhagen to set international targets.
Meanwhile the Europeans are suspicious that Washington is negotiating a backroom deal with Beijing on emissions that will fall far short of what's needed if there's to be any hope of avoiding catastrophic climate change. Harper will undoubtedly be delighted to drink from the same bowl, especially if Washington and Beijing hold the seat up.
According to The New York Times, the draft resolution of the G8 calls for an "aspirational global goal" of a 50% cut by 2050. That's the same flim flam Bush agreed to at the G8 summit last year in Japan.
Major polluting nations watered down their ambitions to tackle global warming at a G8 summit in Italy on Wednesday despite growing pressure to set tough targets to cut pollution.
The Group of Eight leading industrialised nations and other major economies -- including China and India -- dropped a pledge to halve global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, a European Union official said.
"There is indeed a very strong commitment to identify the global goal for substantially reducing global emissions by 2050, but there is no 50 percent" mentioned in a draft declaration, the official said on condition of anonymity.
Leaders face mounting pressure to make ambitious commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions at the summit in L'Aquila with the clock ticking for a key December meeting in Copenhagen to set international targets.
Meanwhile the Europeans are suspicious that Washington is negotiating a backroom deal with Beijing on emissions that will fall far short of what's needed if there's to be any hope of avoiding catastrophic climate change. Harper will undoubtedly be delighted to drink from the same bowl, especially if Washington and Beijing hold the seat up.
According to The New York Times, the draft resolution of the G8 calls for an "aspirational global goal" of a 50% cut by 2050. That's the same flim flam Bush agreed to at the G8 summit last year in Japan.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Stephen Harper - Enemy of the State?
I don't know if this is true but Avaaz.org is claiming that Stephen Harper intends to try to derail the global warming initiative at this week's G8 summit. The organization maintains that Harper, allied with the Russians, will seek to block the adoption of a warming target of 2 degrees Celsius, a move that could fatally undermine the Copenhagen summit in December.
If this warning is true and if Michael Ignatieff wants something powerful on which to attack Harper, this is it. All he'd have to do is unglue his ass from that fence he's been straddling since he assumed the Liberal leadership.
If this warning is true and if Michael Ignatieff wants something powerful on which to attack Harper, this is it. All he'd have to do is unglue his ass from that fence he's been straddling since he assumed the Liberal leadership.
Stop Treating Us Like Children!
Why is the British government willing, even eager, to discuss the expected coming effects of climate change with its people while Canadian political leaders don't even want to mention it?
The British government is talking to its people, telling them what to expect, initiating discussion on how to deal with change. They're telling their people they have to plan - now. From BBC News:
The UK needs to plan now for a future that will be hotter and bring greater extremes of flood and drought, says Environment Secretary Hilary Benn.
Launching the UK Climate Projections 2009 report (UKCP09), Mr Benn told MPs that the UK climate will change even with a global deal on emissions.
By 2080, London will be between 2C and 6C hotter than it is now, he said.
Every part of the UK is likely to be wetter in winter and drier in summer, according to the projections.
Summer rainfall could decrease by about 20% in the south of England and in Yorkshire and Humberside by the middle of the century.
The government hopes UKCP09 will allow citizens, local authorities and businesses to plan for future decades.
"Climate change is going to transform the way we live," said Mr Benn.
"These projections show us the future we need to avoid, and the future we need to plan for."
Is it just us? Maybe a people who managed to tough out the Blitz can be trusted with a bit of rough news that we're too soft to handle. Maybe Messrs. Harper and Ignatieff and Layton figure we're way too jittery, we'd all go sticking our heads in ovens and turning on the gas.
The Brits want to plan for a London that could, within three generations, be 6 degrees Celsius warmer. That's a lot but they're not afraid to lay it out before the public so that they can do what they need to do - plan for their future.
Here's something to think about. Worrying as the Brit outlook may be, those of you in central, southern Canada are insane if you think you're going to be any better off than the Brits by 2080. So don't you think it's past time for our leaders to either give us the information we need to begin to plan for our own future or explain why they won't or can't? If they're going to treat you like children, act like children - don't vote (for them anyway).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8107014.stm
The British government is talking to its people, telling them what to expect, initiating discussion on how to deal with change. They're telling their people they have to plan - now. From BBC News:
The UK needs to plan now for a future that will be hotter and bring greater extremes of flood and drought, says Environment Secretary Hilary Benn.
Launching the UK Climate Projections 2009 report (UKCP09), Mr Benn told MPs that the UK climate will change even with a global deal on emissions.
By 2080, London will be between 2C and 6C hotter than it is now, he said.
Every part of the UK is likely to be wetter in winter and drier in summer, according to the projections.
Summer rainfall could decrease by about 20% in the south of England and in Yorkshire and Humberside by the middle of the century.
The government hopes UKCP09 will allow citizens, local authorities and businesses to plan for future decades.
"Climate change is going to transform the way we live," said Mr Benn.
"These projections show us the future we need to avoid, and the future we need to plan for."
Is it just us? Maybe a people who managed to tough out the Blitz can be trusted with a bit of rough news that we're too soft to handle. Maybe Messrs. Harper and Ignatieff and Layton figure we're way too jittery, we'd all go sticking our heads in ovens and turning on the gas.
The Brits want to plan for a London that could, within three generations, be 6 degrees Celsius warmer. That's a lot but they're not afraid to lay it out before the public so that they can do what they need to do - plan for their future.
Here's something to think about. Worrying as the Brit outlook may be, those of you in central, southern Canada are insane if you think you're going to be any better off than the Brits by 2080. So don't you think it's past time for our leaders to either give us the information we need to begin to plan for our own future or explain why they won't or can't? If they're going to treat you like children, act like children - don't vote (for them anyway).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8107014.stm
Well, This Will Certainly Piss'em Off in Biloxi
Get out the white hoods and light that cross. This time it's not the Jews or the negroes - it's those damned Catholics!
If there's one thing American rednecks hate, it's the idea of a world government. They're positively xenophobic about it and you'll find plenty in the halls of Congress who'll happily take up the call to arms. These are the guys who see the United Nations as a conspiracy against the United States.
That's why they're bound to be thrown into a headlong tizzy by the latest encyclical from Pope Bennie released on the eve of the G8 summit. From The New York Times:
Pope Benedict XVI on Tuesday called for a radical rethinking of the global economy, criticizing a growing divide between rich and poor and urging the establishment of a “world political authority” to oversee the economy and work for the “common good.”
...Indeed, sometimes Benedict sounds like an old-school European socialist, lamenting the decline of the social welfare state and praising the “importance” of labor unions to protect workers. Without stable work, he notes, people lose hope and tend not to get married and have children.
But he also wrote that “The so-called outsourcing of production can weaken the company’s sense of responsibility towards the stakeholders — namely the workers, the suppliers, the consumers, the natural environment and broader society — in favor of the shareholders.”
And he argued that it is “erroneous to hold that the market economy has an inbuilt need for a quota of poverty and underdevelopment in order to function at its best.”
Benedict also called for a reform of the United Nations so that there can be a unified “global political body” that allows the less powerful of the earth to have a voice, and called on rich nations to help less fortunate ones.
Gee, that should go down well with the Group of 8, aka the Group of 8 Only. I can't begin to imagine what the likes of Glenn Beck will make of this.
If there's one thing American rednecks hate, it's the idea of a world government. They're positively xenophobic about it and you'll find plenty in the halls of Congress who'll happily take up the call to arms. These are the guys who see the United Nations as a conspiracy against the United States.
That's why they're bound to be thrown into a headlong tizzy by the latest encyclical from Pope Bennie released on the eve of the G8 summit. From The New York Times:
Pope Benedict XVI on Tuesday called for a radical rethinking of the global economy, criticizing a growing divide between rich and poor and urging the establishment of a “world political authority” to oversee the economy and work for the “common good.”
...Indeed, sometimes Benedict sounds like an old-school European socialist, lamenting the decline of the social welfare state and praising the “importance” of labor unions to protect workers. Without stable work, he notes, people lose hope and tend not to get married and have children.
But he also wrote that “The so-called outsourcing of production can weaken the company’s sense of responsibility towards the stakeholders — namely the workers, the suppliers, the consumers, the natural environment and broader society — in favor of the shareholders.”
And he argued that it is “erroneous to hold that the market economy has an inbuilt need for a quota of poverty and underdevelopment in order to function at its best.”
Benedict also called for a reform of the United Nations so that there can be a unified “global political body” that allows the less powerful of the earth to have a voice, and called on rich nations to help less fortunate ones.
Gee, that should go down well with the Group of 8, aka the Group of 8 Only. I can't begin to imagine what the likes of Glenn Beck will make of this.
WTF? CTV Wants Me to Pay Tribute to Michael Jackson?
Dear Conservative Television Network:
I've never placed an excessive confidence in your judgment. You do, after all, employ the living dead to anchor your newscasts and permit tiny porcine Yoda figures to shill for Stephen Harper before they're whisked away to the great Upper House.
But, to "invite" me and all Canadians to "pay tribute" to the King of Pop, Michael Jackson? Don't you think that's just a tad over the edge? Even for CTV?
Didn't the Romans start this nonsense by making their conquered countries pay tribute to them, the conquerors? Now explain to me why I should pay tribute or pay anything for that matter to a once highly talented but now even more highly dead, reputed child molestor who overdosed on prescription meds? After all, I was never conquered by Michael Jackson. Those kids might have been, but not me.
CTV thanks but no thanks. I'm going to pass on your invitation.
I've never placed an excessive confidence in your judgment. You do, after all, employ the living dead to anchor your newscasts and permit tiny porcine Yoda figures to shill for Stephen Harper before they're whisked away to the great Upper House.
But, to "invite" me and all Canadians to "pay tribute" to the King of Pop, Michael Jackson? Don't you think that's just a tad over the edge? Even for CTV?
Didn't the Romans start this nonsense by making their conquered countries pay tribute to them, the conquerors? Now explain to me why I should pay tribute or pay anything for that matter to a once highly talented but now even more highly dead, reputed child molestor who overdosed on prescription meds? After all, I was never conquered by Michael Jackson. Those kids might have been, but not me.
CTV thanks but no thanks. I'm going to pass on your invitation.
But What If They're Right?
The past year has seen a dark and ominous change sweep through the science of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming.
For years the leading scientists in the field have been issuing predictions and forecasts and warnings only to see their conclusions overtaken by unanticipated change and proven far too conservative, too optimistic. By the time their research is assembled, reviewed and digested into IPCC reports, it's usually outdated and grossly understated.
As Gwynne Dyer noted, climate scientists he interviewed for his book Climate Wars, seemed shell-shocked at the unexpectedly rapid pace of global warming. For years they've muttered about "tipping points" conditions that might occur even without our noticing that could trigger runaway global warming of a scale catastrophic to mankind.
In the last six months, they've shed that last sliver of wishful thinking. One of them, Britain's James Lovelock, believes we're either in freefall or we'll be there soon. Another, America's James Hansen, believes we're Hanging Ten on the abyss and staring at our very last chance to act.
In an article in the June 29th edition of The New Yorker, Hansen says they got it horribly wrong. For some time they've estimated that the key to limiting planetary warming (to the target of two degrees celsius above pre-industrial levels) was to keep CO2 in the atmosphere within 450 parts per million. We're at 380 now. Those numbers were wrong, says Hansen. He maintains that the latest studies and warming evidence from around the world shows that the magic number isn't 450, but 350. In other words, the needle's already bouncing around in the red. Our only hope now, says Hansen, is to shut down the world's coal-fired power plants and replace them with renewables within twenty years. His warning pulls no punches. Get it done by 2030 or our civilization is essentially finished.
Across the pond, old James Lovelock (he is 90), isn't such a gushing optimist. He figures we're already well past the point of no return. He sees mankind's numbers falling from the current nearly 7-billion to a mere several hundred millions by the end of the century living in the few pockets of the planet capable of sustaining civilization. From Alternet:
Lovelock is cautiously hopeful that as many as several hundred million humans will survive the century and carve pockets of civilization into the coming hot state. Our current global civilization is about to end, but there is every reason to “take hope from the fact that our species is unusually tough and is unlikely to go extinct in the coming climate catastrophe.”
...Those who survive will be responsible for maintaining a high-tech, low-impact, low-energy society advanced enough to keep the flame of progress alive but small and smart enough to carefully husband what arable land remains. Lovelock guesses the rump human race will cluster around a few temperate islands in the far northern hemisphere, including his native U.K. He believes that if emergency preparations are made in time—he compares the present moment to 1939—and if the worst-case scenarios of geopolitical conflict are avoided—namely resource scrambles leading to global thermonuclear war—then something resembling a modern and even urban lifestyle could await the survivors.
Now the good news is that we live in one of the few places where life could be sustainable. Maybe we'll bring palm trees back to the Arctic and remake Beach Blanket Bingo on the tropical shores of Ellesmere Island. Maybe - if we're lucky enough to survive "resource scrambles leading to global thermonuclear war." Maybe.
----
I'm not asking you to believe these guys. I can't ask you to do that because I can't say they're right. But I can quite reasonably ask you to accept that they may be right and, judging by their track record over the past four decades, there's a very good chance they may be right.
Using the "they could be right" test, don't you think we should be discussing these things now? Don't you think we should be examining what Canadians need to do to position themselves to fully benefit from the extraordinarily lucky geographical position we hold? If these guys are right, you can count on one hand the countries that will be able to sustain civilized life and, when it comes to that world, there's no country luckier.
As pointed out in the Alternet article, what we need most and need right now is some clear-headed, hard-nosed political leadership. While you're reading this next passage, I want you to keep in mind "Tar Sands Michael":
[Lovelock] has been ruthless in his attacks on politicians and businessmen who peddle hope in the form of meaningless but potentially profitable gestures like cap-and-trade. This has deeply antagonized his fellow greens still scrambling to generate public support for bold solutions to the climate crisis.
Lovelock’s impatience with feel-good “Yes, we can” liberal environmentalism borders on contempt. There are passages in Vanishing that, were it not for their eloquence, could have been uttered by Glenn Beck. The delusional rhetoric about “sustainable development” peddled by green politicians and businessmen, writes Lovelock, just shows that we have “weaved the sound of the alarm clock into our dreams.” In one of the book’s many memorable passages on the green politics of hope, Lovelock compares sustainable development to deathbed snake oil peddled by an alt-medicine quack.
“Just as we as individuals try alternative medicine,” writes Lovelock, “our governments have many offers from alternative business and their lobbies of sustainable ways to ‘save the planet,’ and from some green hospice there may come the anodyne of hope.”
Those who are booking us rooms in the "green hospice" are those who peddle us nonsense about carbon capture, clean coal and cap and trade emissions controls.
Even if Lovelock and Hansen have overstated the threat facing mankind from AGW, unless they're dead wrong and unless all the climate change evidence we're seeing in front of our eyes is not happening, then climate change is the overwhelmingly paramount issue to Canada and the Canadian people.
Yet we're stuck with a self-proclaimed leader who thinks we'll be needing the Tar Sands to hold our country together throughout this century, to ensure our continued prosperity for decades to come? That's the thinking of a total failure, of a man unwilling or unable to see much less lead Canada through the existential challenges we surely will not be able to avoid, much less avert. Maybe Michael needs to ask "what if they're right?"
For years the leading scientists in the field have been issuing predictions and forecasts and warnings only to see their conclusions overtaken by unanticipated change and proven far too conservative, too optimistic. By the time their research is assembled, reviewed and digested into IPCC reports, it's usually outdated and grossly understated.
As Gwynne Dyer noted, climate scientists he interviewed for his book Climate Wars, seemed shell-shocked at the unexpectedly rapid pace of global warming. For years they've muttered about "tipping points" conditions that might occur even without our noticing that could trigger runaway global warming of a scale catastrophic to mankind.
In the last six months, they've shed that last sliver of wishful thinking. One of them, Britain's James Lovelock, believes we're either in freefall or we'll be there soon. Another, America's James Hansen, believes we're Hanging Ten on the abyss and staring at our very last chance to act.
In an article in the June 29th edition of The New Yorker, Hansen says they got it horribly wrong. For some time they've estimated that the key to limiting planetary warming (to the target of two degrees celsius above pre-industrial levels) was to keep CO2 in the atmosphere within 450 parts per million. We're at 380 now. Those numbers were wrong, says Hansen. He maintains that the latest studies and warming evidence from around the world shows that the magic number isn't 450, but 350. In other words, the needle's already bouncing around in the red. Our only hope now, says Hansen, is to shut down the world's coal-fired power plants and replace them with renewables within twenty years. His warning pulls no punches. Get it done by 2030 or our civilization is essentially finished.
Across the pond, old James Lovelock (he is 90), isn't such a gushing optimist. He figures we're already well past the point of no return. He sees mankind's numbers falling from the current nearly 7-billion to a mere several hundred millions by the end of the century living in the few pockets of the planet capable of sustaining civilization. From Alternet:
Lovelock is cautiously hopeful that as many as several hundred million humans will survive the century and carve pockets of civilization into the coming hot state. Our current global civilization is about to end, but there is every reason to “take hope from the fact that our species is unusually tough and is unlikely to go extinct in the coming climate catastrophe.”
...Those who survive will be responsible for maintaining a high-tech, low-impact, low-energy society advanced enough to keep the flame of progress alive but small and smart enough to carefully husband what arable land remains. Lovelock guesses the rump human race will cluster around a few temperate islands in the far northern hemisphere, including his native U.K. He believes that if emergency preparations are made in time—he compares the present moment to 1939—and if the worst-case scenarios of geopolitical conflict are avoided—namely resource scrambles leading to global thermonuclear war—then something resembling a modern and even urban lifestyle could await the survivors.
Now the good news is that we live in one of the few places where life could be sustainable. Maybe we'll bring palm trees back to the Arctic and remake Beach Blanket Bingo on the tropical shores of Ellesmere Island. Maybe - if we're lucky enough to survive "resource scrambles leading to global thermonuclear war." Maybe.
----
I'm not asking you to believe these guys. I can't ask you to do that because I can't say they're right. But I can quite reasonably ask you to accept that they may be right and, judging by their track record over the past four decades, there's a very good chance they may be right.
Using the "they could be right" test, don't you think we should be discussing these things now? Don't you think we should be examining what Canadians need to do to position themselves to fully benefit from the extraordinarily lucky geographical position we hold? If these guys are right, you can count on one hand the countries that will be able to sustain civilized life and, when it comes to that world, there's no country luckier.
As pointed out in the Alternet article, what we need most and need right now is some clear-headed, hard-nosed political leadership. While you're reading this next passage, I want you to keep in mind "Tar Sands Michael":
[Lovelock] has been ruthless in his attacks on politicians and businessmen who peddle hope in the form of meaningless but potentially profitable gestures like cap-and-trade. This has deeply antagonized his fellow greens still scrambling to generate public support for bold solutions to the climate crisis.
Lovelock’s impatience with feel-good “Yes, we can” liberal environmentalism borders on contempt. There are passages in Vanishing that, were it not for their eloquence, could have been uttered by Glenn Beck. The delusional rhetoric about “sustainable development” peddled by green politicians and businessmen, writes Lovelock, just shows that we have “weaved the sound of the alarm clock into our dreams.” In one of the book’s many memorable passages on the green politics of hope, Lovelock compares sustainable development to deathbed snake oil peddled by an alt-medicine quack.
“Just as we as individuals try alternative medicine,” writes Lovelock, “our governments have many offers from alternative business and their lobbies of sustainable ways to ‘save the planet,’ and from some green hospice there may come the anodyne of hope.”
Those who are booking us rooms in the "green hospice" are those who peddle us nonsense about carbon capture, clean coal and cap and trade emissions controls.
Even if Lovelock and Hansen have overstated the threat facing mankind from AGW, unless they're dead wrong and unless all the climate change evidence we're seeing in front of our eyes is not happening, then climate change is the overwhelmingly paramount issue to Canada and the Canadian people.
Yet we're stuck with a self-proclaimed leader who thinks we'll be needing the Tar Sands to hold our country together throughout this century, to ensure our continued prosperity for decades to come? That's the thinking of a total failure, of a man unwilling or unable to see much less lead Canada through the existential challenges we surely will not be able to avoid, much less avert. Maybe Michael needs to ask "what if they're right?"
Saturday, July 04, 2009
Break Out the Ritalin
And the dog ate her homework. I only just watched the Palin resignation announcement. If you haven't watched it, you really should. This is a woman in full blown panic.
As Shannyn Moore put it on Huffington Post, "Sarah Palin's political ambition combined with her intellect is like putting a jet engine on a golf cart; lots of horse power and no steering capabilities. Today she proved it."
Meanwhile, never one to leave a turd unvarnished, the Weekly Standard's clown prince William Kristol showed just how hard he can spin this one:
If Palin wants to run in 2012, why not do exactly what she announced today? It's an enormous gamble - but it could be a shrewd one.
After all, she's freeing herself from the duties of the governorship. Now she can do her book, give speeches, travel the country and the world, campaign for others, meet people, get more educated on the issues - and without being criticized for neglecting her duties in Alaska. I suppose she'll take a hit for leaving the governorship early - but how much of one? She's probably accomplished most of what she was going to get done as governor, and is leaving a sympatico lieutenant governor in charge.
And haven't conservatives been lamenting the lack of a national leader? Well, now she'll try to be that. She may not succeed. Everything rests on her talents, and on her performance. She'll be under intense and hostile scrutiny, and she'll have to perform well.
Bill, go sit down in the corner and give you brain a rest.
As Shannyn Moore put it on Huffington Post, "Sarah Palin's political ambition combined with her intellect is like putting a jet engine on a golf cart; lots of horse power and no steering capabilities. Today she proved it."
Meanwhile, never one to leave a turd unvarnished, the Weekly Standard's clown prince William Kristol showed just how hard he can spin this one:
If Palin wants to run in 2012, why not do exactly what she announced today? It's an enormous gamble - but it could be a shrewd one.
After all, she's freeing herself from the duties of the governorship. Now she can do her book, give speeches, travel the country and the world, campaign for others, meet people, get more educated on the issues - and without being criticized for neglecting her duties in Alaska. I suppose she'll take a hit for leaving the governorship early - but how much of one? She's probably accomplished most of what she was going to get done as governor, and is leaving a sympatico lieutenant governor in charge.
And haven't conservatives been lamenting the lack of a national leader? Well, now she'll try to be that. She may not succeed. Everything rests on her talents, and on her performance. She'll be under intense and hostile scrutiny, and she'll have to perform well.
Bill, go sit down in the corner and give you brain a rest.
The Powerful Pitfalls of Positive Thinking
Canadian researchers have discovered that a lot of the hype about positive thinking is just that - hype - and can even backfire for some people. Bad news for the multi-billion dollar "self help" publishing business. From BBC News
The researchers, from the University of Waterloo and the University of New Brunswick, asked people with high and low self-esteem to say "I am a lovable person."
They then measured the participants' moods and their feelings about themselves.
In the low self-esteem group, those who repeated the mantra felt worse afterwards compared with others who did not.
However people with high self-esteem felt better after repeating the positive self-statement - but only slightly.
The psychologists then asked the study participants to list negative and positive thoughts about themselves.
They found that, paradoxically, those with low self-esteem were in a better mood when they were allowed to have negative thoughts than when they were asked to focus exclusively on affirmative thoughts.
In other words, if you don't need it, self-help techniques are wonderful. If your self-esteem is in the toilet, not so much.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8132857.stm
The researchers, from the University of Waterloo and the University of New Brunswick, asked people with high and low self-esteem to say "I am a lovable person."
They then measured the participants' moods and their feelings about themselves.
In the low self-esteem group, those who repeated the mantra felt worse afterwards compared with others who did not.
However people with high self-esteem felt better after repeating the positive self-statement - but only slightly.
The psychologists then asked the study participants to list negative and positive thoughts about themselves.
They found that, paradoxically, those with low self-esteem were in a better mood when they were allowed to have negative thoughts than when they were asked to focus exclusively on affirmative thoughts.
In other words, if you don't need it, self-help techniques are wonderful. If your self-esteem is in the toilet, not so much.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8132857.stm
Tasers Worthwhile Sometimes - Well, Duh!
It happened in a park in Surrey, B.C. on Thursday night. Officer responds to call about drunken teenager wielding a knife. Hears an argument. Confronts the 15-year old who has his hands behind his back. Kid brings his hand forward revealing a 15-cm. blade. When the suspect refuses to drop the weapon, cop stuns him with a single taser burst. Problem over.
Afterward, RCMP spokesman Sergeant Roger Morrow jumps all over the incident. "Despite all of the discussion and to some degree controversy over the use of Tasers, they are a very valuable weapon."
Memo to Morrow: the controversy is over the improper use of Tasers, not where they're employed like this as an alternative to a firearm. Please tell me that a sergeant in the RCMP grasps that distinction. Please?
Afterward, RCMP spokesman Sergeant Roger Morrow jumps all over the incident. "Despite all of the discussion and to some degree controversy over the use of Tasers, they are a very valuable weapon."
Memo to Morrow: the controversy is over the improper use of Tasers, not where they're employed like this as an alternative to a firearm. Please tell me that a sergeant in the RCMP grasps that distinction. Please?
Obama's Fourth of July
"...there are those who would have us try what has already failed; who would defend the status quo. They argue that our health care system is fine the way it is and that a clean energy economy can wait. They say we are trying to do too much, that we are moving too quickly, and that we all ought to just take a deep breath and scale back our goals."
...These naysayers have short memories. They forget that we, as a people, did not get here by standing pat in a time of change. We did not get here by doing what was easy.
These are a couple of passages from Obama's Fourth of July address. As I read his powerful rebuke to the "naysayers" I was reminded of the rank cowardice that has permeated Canada's political leadership - a gaggle of naysayers each trying to outshout the others in saying "not now, we can't, we musn't, let's maintain the status quo, we need to 'just take a deep breath and scale back our goals.'"
They say there is no noise in a vacuum. Perhaps that explains the eerie silence surrounding the vision of our leaders. They all deserve the sack, the lot of them.
...These naysayers have short memories. They forget that we, as a people, did not get here by standing pat in a time of change. We did not get here by doing what was easy.
These are a couple of passages from Obama's Fourth of July address. As I read his powerful rebuke to the "naysayers" I was reminded of the rank cowardice that has permeated Canada's political leadership - a gaggle of naysayers each trying to outshout the others in saying "not now, we can't, we musn't, let's maintain the status quo, we need to 'just take a deep breath and scale back our goals.'"
They say there is no noise in a vacuum. Perhaps that explains the eerie silence surrounding the vision of our leaders. They all deserve the sack, the lot of them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
