With negotiations for a new climate treaty ongoing in Copenhagen, some local environmental activists are holding a rally at the Cenotaph in Victoria Park on Saturday to express solidarity with millions of other people across the planet and press world-leaders, including Canuck bad-boy Stephen Harper, to forge an agreement that results in substantial cuts to greenhouse gas emissions now. The rally begins at 12:18 p.m. and will last until 1 p.m.
Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
12.11.2009
Rally for Climate Justice
With negotiations for a new climate treaty ongoing in Copenhagen, some local environmental activists are holding a rally at the Cenotaph in Victoria Park on Saturday to express solidarity with millions of other people across the planet and press world-leaders, including Canuck bad-boy Stephen Harper, to forge an agreement that results in substantial cuts to greenhouse gas emissions now. The rally begins at 12:18 p.m. and will last until 1 p.m.
12.06.2009
Measuring Up
Found this on the Royal Saskatchewan Museum website. It offers a bit of info on the concept of an ecological footprint, and provides a rudimentary way to calculate your own. Here's the link here. Prepare to be shocked, I imagine, although in fairness to myself, my score was inflated somewhat by the fact I live alone. There's a world population counter on the site too. It's pretty shocking as well. Seven billion, here we come!
11.30.2009
Canada: A Corrupt Petrostate
The 2009 Munk Debate will be held tomorrow night. The Globe and Mail is having some kind of pre-debate show live streaming "chatty" type-a-thingy on it's website where you can send in questions. And you can sign up to watch the debate free on the web at the Munk Debate website.
This year's debate will see climate liars... er... "sceptics" Bjorn Lomborg and Nigel Lawson face Guardian science columnist, George Monbiot and Green Party leader, Elizabeth May.
Should be interesting.
I don't know much about Lawson, but Lomborg is one of these soft-in-the-middle climate deniers. He's not like, say, Christopher Monckton who scoffs at the idea that people are warming the planet. Lomborg accepts the scientific consensus on this (up to a point), he just figures that based on his cost/benefit analysis, we would do better to invest in things like ending poverty instead of making massive investments in reducing carbon emissions.
Oh, and he also thinks that we should stay away from international treaties because we've been trying that route for 20 years and look where it's gotten us.
Gee, Bjorn, the lack of action on climate change couldn't have anything to do with chaps like yourself sowing discord and discouraging action on the subject, could it? You're not really being on the up and up when you say a particular solution won't work if you're the guy fucking with it?
As for the "feeding the poor instead of fixing climate change" thing.... it's a false dichotomy. We're not making such massive investments in solving the climate change problem that it's taking aid away from developing nations. In fact, all this line of reasoning he's been trotting out for the past decade has accomplished is to give developed nations (like ours) a good, compassionate-sounding rationale to not invest in reducing carbon emissions. Of course, we don't ever seem to make any corresponding investments in helping the developing world, either.
Still, Lomborg's style of scepticism is a tough one to debate as he'll be doing an end run around the moral highground. (I can almost hear him trilling, "All you care about is carbon. I care about people.") Plus, I think Lomborg's one of these guys who got into the denial game out of a desire to be thought clever and be loved. In a debate I could see him moderating his position just to stay on the audience's good side and to diffuse Monbiot and May's position.
Which brings me to Monbiot... Love his column. Can't say much more except that he has some choice things to say about Canada -- that, as the title of this post suggests, we're turning into a corrupt petrostate. And, I hasten to add, I agree with him.
And May... well... she sure would make a fine PM.
This year's debate will see climate liars... er... "sceptics" Bjorn Lomborg and Nigel Lawson face Guardian science columnist, George Monbiot and Green Party leader, Elizabeth May.
Should be interesting.
I don't know much about Lawson, but Lomborg is one of these soft-in-the-middle climate deniers. He's not like, say, Christopher Monckton who scoffs at the idea that people are warming the planet. Lomborg accepts the scientific consensus on this (up to a point), he just figures that based on his cost/benefit analysis, we would do better to invest in things like ending poverty instead of making massive investments in reducing carbon emissions.
Oh, and he also thinks that we should stay away from international treaties because we've been trying that route for 20 years and look where it's gotten us.
Gee, Bjorn, the lack of action on climate change couldn't have anything to do with chaps like yourself sowing discord and discouraging action on the subject, could it? You're not really being on the up and up when you say a particular solution won't work if you're the guy fucking with it?
As for the "feeding the poor instead of fixing climate change" thing.... it's a false dichotomy. We're not making such massive investments in solving the climate change problem that it's taking aid away from developing nations. In fact, all this line of reasoning he's been trotting out for the past decade has accomplished is to give developed nations (like ours) a good, compassionate-sounding rationale to not invest in reducing carbon emissions. Of course, we don't ever seem to make any corresponding investments in helping the developing world, either.
Still, Lomborg's style of scepticism is a tough one to debate as he'll be doing an end run around the moral highground. (I can almost hear him trilling, "All you care about is carbon. I care about people.") Plus, I think Lomborg's one of these guys who got into the denial game out of a desire to be thought clever and be loved. In a debate I could see him moderating his position just to stay on the audience's good side and to diffuse Monbiot and May's position.
Which brings me to Monbiot... Love his column. Can't say much more except that he has some choice things to say about Canada -- that, as the title of this post suggests, we're turning into a corrupt petrostate. And, I hasten to add, I agree with him.
And May... well... she sure would make a fine PM.
11.16.2009
More On U.S. Climate Change Politics
The New York Times has a summary of how difficult it is to get anti-global warming legislation passed in the United States. It doesn't mention how government is up against lobbyists fighting regulation every step of the way which is the biggest part of the problem, but otherwise it's a decent recap of where the world's at on this file. Article's here.
9.08.2009
Greener Pastures?
Having failed to unseat Conservative Defence Minister Peter MacKay in the 2008 federal election in Central Nova, Green Party leader Elizabeth May is going to swallow her pride a bit and try her luck on the west coast in the next election (which could come as early as this fall). Seems like a smart move to me, as absent a shift to proportional representation that would allow the 6.8 per cent of the popular vote that the party captured in 2008 to translate into actual seats, B.C. probably has the green-friendliest electorate. (CBC)
Where Did All The Global Warming Go?
Are you like some who look back on our chilly summer and think maybe all this global warming stuff is nonsense?
Well, have a gander at this data from National Climatic Data Centre. (Click on the image to get a bigger view.)
That map image compiles surface temperatures from around the world for July of this year. Red dot means warmer than the base period. Blue dot means cooler. You'll note we're in an area covered in blue dots. But look at all those frickin red dots.
Need more proof that you can't judge global climate based on local weather? (Are you listening Rex Murphy? Oh... probably not.)
For the record, data for May and June looks similar.
I found this info thanks to Peter Sinclair's excellent Climate Crock of the Week video blog (which I watched via DeSmog Blog). If you're interested in more on the climate-change-denier myth of 1998 being the hottest year on record, check this out....
8.05.2009
Thursday Happening
With all the premiers in town for the Federation Council meeting or whatever they call it, a bunch of environomental groups have come together under the banner of Climate Showdown in Regina to try to ensure that environmental issues are on the table. Given that the meeting's in Regina, they've kind of entered the lion's den in terms of resistance to measures to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and our carbon footprint. Not as bad as Calgary, admittedly. But still, pretty unsympathetic. Thursday night between 7-11 p.m. at the Cathedral Village Neighbourhood Centre (2900 13th Ave.) there's a potluck/social to celebrate the showdown. Regina band Oye! (pictured above) is playing. Check it out if you want. There's also a rally Thursday at noon in front of the Legislature to highlight the importance of climate justice.
7.27.2009
Memo to the Big Three
Uh, when you're busy planning your restructurings, you might want to consider something along the lines of what Nissan's doing. (MSN)
Rex Murphy: A Second Opinion
He's a contrarian asshole. No, seriously.
How's that for a second opinion?
By disputing climate change in Canada's paper of record based on his (irrelevent) personal observations of local weather conditions and on Ian Plimer's discredited anti climate change book book Heaven + Earth, Rex Murphy casts doubt on what scientific consensus says is a clear and present danger to civilization that requires immediate action.
Murphy's article is appalling. It's like defending smoking as harmless. In fact it's worse, because unlike smoking, climate change is a threat to our standard of living, our civilization and possibly our species.
There's just too much at stake to let Murphy's column pass without comment. First, about Plimer's book, which Rex Murphy is enamoured with. Is it any good? Not according to this July 10 column by the Guardian's science editor, George Monbiot:
You can read the full thing here. Monbiot's column is a rebuke to a British newspaper, The Spectator, that published a glowing feature about Plimer's crappy book.
Second, if we're going to throw around anecdotes about weather, here's one that's worth a little more than Murphy's. It's from Canadian astronaut Bob Thirsk, who's currently enjoying the view from the International Space Station. Thirsk, who was last in space over a decade ago, has some observations:
"This is probably just a perception, but I just have the feeling that the glaciers are melting, the snow capping the mountains is less than it was 12 years ago when I saw it last time."
You can read the full story with that quote here (Montreal Gazette). Thirsk's "perception", incidentally, agrees with U.S. satellite photos which Dechene posted about earlier today.
The science editors and astronauts agree: we've got a global warming problem, Houston. Too bad a few days of mellow weather and a crappy book convinced a Globe And Mail columnist there's nothing to worry about.
How's that for a second opinion?
By disputing climate change in Canada's paper of record based on his (irrelevent) personal observations of local weather conditions and on Ian Plimer's discredited anti climate change book book Heaven + Earth, Rex Murphy casts doubt on what scientific consensus says is a clear and present danger to civilization that requires immediate action.
Murphy's article is appalling. It's like defending smoking as harmless. In fact it's worse, because unlike smoking, climate change is a threat to our standard of living, our civilization and possibly our species.
There's just too much at stake to let Murphy's column pass without comment. First, about Plimer's book, which Rex Murphy is enamoured with. Is it any good? Not according to this July 10 column by the Guardian's science editor, George Monbiot:
"Seldom has a book been as cleanly murdered by scientists as Ian Plimer's Heaven + Earth, which purports to show that man-made climate change is nonsense. Since its publication in Australia it has been ridiculed for a hilarious series of schoolboy errors, and its fudging and manipulation of the data."
You can read the full thing here. Monbiot's column is a rebuke to a British newspaper, The Spectator, that published a glowing feature about Plimer's crappy book.
Second, if we're going to throw around anecdotes about weather, here's one that's worth a little more than Murphy's. It's from Canadian astronaut Bob Thirsk, who's currently enjoying the view from the International Space Station. Thirsk, who was last in space over a decade ago, has some observations:
"This is probably just a perception, but I just have the feeling that the glaciers are melting, the snow capping the mountains is less than it was 12 years ago when I saw it last time."
You can read the full story with that quote here (Montreal Gazette). Thirsk's "perception", incidentally, agrees with U.S. satellite photos which Dechene posted about earlier today.
The science editors and astronauts agree: we've got a global warming problem, Houston. Too bad a few days of mellow weather and a crappy book convinced a Globe And Mail columnist there's nothing to worry about.
U.S. Spies Prove Climate Deniers Wrong
Following up on this post, one of Ian Plimer's many ridiculous claims in Heaven and Earth is this one:
Well, as is being reported in the Guardian, the Obama administration has recently declassified a whole whack of satellite photos of the arctic, and the photo evidence is undeniable: arctic and glacial ice is retreating at an alarming pace. (More on that story here. And a really scary gallery of photos here.)
How could Plimer (and by extension Rex Murphy) get things so wrong? Well, as Enting points out, the first sentence in that quote above doesn't follow from the second. Plimer, it seems, is confusing speed with acceleration. The source he's using there did indeed show that glacial melting is not speeding up from year to year. But that glacial melt isn't accelerating doesn't mean that it isn't happening. In fact, that's exactly what Plimer's source shows (and the spy satellite pictures prove once again): Glacial ice is reteating at a steady (a more literate columnist might say "inexorable") pace.
The good news is that alpine valley glaciers are not retreating. Measurements of retreats and advances from glaciers in the period 1946–1995 for 246 glaciers show that there is no sign of any recent global trend towards increased glacier melting.It leaves one with the impression that we've little to worry as the world's glaciers aren't disappearing.
Well, as is being reported in the Guardian, the Obama administration has recently declassified a whole whack of satellite photos of the arctic, and the photo evidence is undeniable: arctic and glacial ice is retreating at an alarming pace. (More on that story here. And a really scary gallery of photos here.)
How could Plimer (and by extension Rex Murphy) get things so wrong? Well, as Enting points out, the first sentence in that quote above doesn't follow from the second. Plimer, it seems, is confusing speed with acceleration. The source he's using there did indeed show that glacial melting is not speeding up from year to year. But that glacial melt isn't accelerating doesn't mean that it isn't happening. In fact, that's exactly what Plimer's source shows (and the spy satellite pictures prove once again): Glacial ice is reteating at a steady (a more literate columnist might say "inexorable") pace.
Message to Rex Murphy: Cut That Out Right This Minute
Yet more evidence that having a really marvelous grasp of the English language doesn't mean you actually know anything -- or, rather, that critique is not the same as analysis: in his Globe And Mail column last week, Rex Murphy attempted to make the case that global warming isn't happening. His evidence? He stepped outside, apparently. I guess if things are chilly in Toronto then so goes the globe.
It's a loathsome position Mr Murphy is staking out for himself but fortunately it's one he should find he's rather isolated in. I have to wonder if he knows what he's getting himself into. Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Bill O'Reilly, George Noory. Not exactly the class of people I expect Rex is used to palling around with. What will they talk about? He'll have to buy all his new chums pocket dictionaries.
But that's the hell he's condemned himself to.
Thing is, while having such an eloquent voice out shilling for the forces of ignorance is a VERY dangerous thing, I can't help but feel a little sorry for the cranky ol'coot from Newfoundland (my current favourite province, I should note). It seems he has fallen under the spell of one of those lengthy tomes of shoddy, conservative-pleasing, quasi-science that pop up in airport bookstores now and then: Ian Plimer's Heaven and Earth: Global Warming - the Missing Science. It's over 500 pages long, has a raft of citations throughout and has both a colon and an N-dash in the title, I can see how Rex might be tricked into thinking it's legit.
As it turns out, it's anything but.
You can find a list of rebuttals of Plimer's book here. A particularly good one is a point-by-point analysis by mathematical physicist Ian Enting. The thrust of his critique is that Plimer's work has numerous internal inconsistencies and that despite extensive referencing, his more controversial claims lack citation or the contents of his reference are mis-quoted.
In short, Plimer never actually manages to prove that humans aren't causing climate change but that fact is obfuscated by all his misleading assertions, phony references and deceptively rendered graphs.
Meanwhile, Rex Murphy calls the book "fearless" and practically dares us to read it. Which, admittedly, I won't be doing. But then, I haven't read any of the more recent works on UFO research, homeopathy or cryptozoology but still I'm confident they're crap.
It's a loathsome position Mr Murphy is staking out for himself but fortunately it's one he should find he's rather isolated in. I have to wonder if he knows what he's getting himself into. Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Bill O'Reilly, George Noory. Not exactly the class of people I expect Rex is used to palling around with. What will they talk about? He'll have to buy all his new chums pocket dictionaries.
But that's the hell he's condemned himself to.
Thing is, while having such an eloquent voice out shilling for the forces of ignorance is a VERY dangerous thing, I can't help but feel a little sorry for the cranky ol'coot from Newfoundland (my current favourite province, I should note). It seems he has fallen under the spell of one of those lengthy tomes of shoddy, conservative-pleasing, quasi-science that pop up in airport bookstores now and then: Ian Plimer's Heaven and Earth: Global Warming - the Missing Science. It's over 500 pages long, has a raft of citations throughout and has both a colon and an N-dash in the title, I can see how Rex might be tricked into thinking it's legit.
As it turns out, it's anything but.
You can find a list of rebuttals of Plimer's book here. A particularly good one is a point-by-point analysis by mathematical physicist Ian Enting. The thrust of his critique is that Plimer's work has numerous internal inconsistencies and that despite extensive referencing, his more controversial claims lack citation or the contents of his reference are mis-quoted.
In short, Plimer never actually manages to prove that humans aren't causing climate change but that fact is obfuscated by all his misleading assertions, phony references and deceptively rendered graphs.
Meanwhile, Rex Murphy calls the book "fearless" and practically dares us to read it. Which, admittedly, I won't be doing. But then, I haven't read any of the more recent works on UFO research, homeopathy or cryptozoology but still I'm confident they're crap.
7.23.2009
Business to Planet: Survival First, We'll Go Green Later
We are so screwed. Today's Business Incubator on the Globe and Mail website considers the question of how important the environment should be to your business. Considering this is being taped and put on the web for anyone to see, you have to assume this group of business owners and consultants are putting their best face forward. And as it turns out, the consensus Canada's business people want the world to see is that the public doesn't really care about the environment so why should they? Moreover, as we're in a recession, business people have to worry about their own survival before concerning themselves about anything as abstract as the planet's.
In other words, if you and I, as consumers, don't stop buying over-packaged, toxic products shipped from the four corners of the globe (because we have sooooo many options), companies won't stop making them. In fact, they'll make more.
Sounds like yet more evidence that the only way to get anything accomplished for the environment is through strong federal legislation. But, hey, that's just me.
In other words, if you and I, as consumers, don't stop buying over-packaged, toxic products shipped from the four corners of the globe (because we have sooooo many options), companies won't stop making them. In fact, they'll make more.
Sounds like yet more evidence that the only way to get anything accomplished for the environment is through strong federal legislation. But, hey, that's just me.
7.12.2009
Token Sunday Night Post
In the spirit of having at least one post up everyday, I offer my thoughts on the following items:
1.) ACTUALLY THAT'S MUCH BETTER THAN I THOUGHT Earlier this evening I edited an absolute nightmare of a column by Paul Dechene who's a total jerk as it turns out. Dechene wrote the Top 6 for the upcoming prairie dog's news section. The topic--tying in with the recent G8 pledge to hold global warming under two degrees--involved him doing a pile of web research on what, exactly happens when the world heats by 2/3/6 degrees etc. Yeah, as you'd expect, it starts out pretty awful then rolls smoothly into nightmarish and apocalyptic. We might have to give our copy editor danger pay for reading the thing. It's completely terrifying. So yeah, thanks for that Paul.
Anyway, on a related note, this past Thursday the Guardian had an article on American beliefs about climate change. A recent poll, the paper reports, shows that only 47 per cent of Americans believe climate change is a serious problem. Yeah, well, you know what? Given the state of public education in the U.S., which is constantly under siege by mystics, morons, dipshits and douchebags, along with the stresses caused by widespread poverty, economic collapse, hyper-religiosity, psychotic mass media and other well-documented, massive national failures, I think the fact that the 47 per cent of Americans have any grasp of reality whatsoever is cause to cheer. I'm not being facetious or sarcastic. This is much, much better than I would've hoped for.
You can read the Guardian's article here. Oh--surprisingly, Republicans are more skeptical about climate change than Democrats. Which makes sense since studies have long shown Republicans are also more likely to be stupid jerks.
2.) Hey, if you're not depressed about climate change and human stupidity (which, as I just said, is actually not as bad as feared, thank goodness for small mercies) you could try reading this Paul Krugman article in the New York Times. Realllllly depressing. It'll knock you right down. A quote:
"Put it this way: if the consensus of the economic experts is grim, the consensus of the climate experts is utterly terrifying. At this point, the central forecast of leading climate models — not the worst-case scenario but the most likely outcome — is utter catastrophe, a rise in temperatures that will totally disrupt life as we know it, if we continue along our present path. How to head off that catastrophe should be the dominant policy issue of our time. But it isn’t, because climate change is a creeping threat rather than an attention-grabbing crisis."
Hooray! Hooray for doomsday scenarios!
3.) Speaking of Dechene, we went to a movie tonight. We're a couple of high-class, art-loving joes so naturally we went to Drag Me To Hell, the Sam Raimi horror-comedy now playing at the Rainbow. Yeah, so, anyone who's ever watched me watch a horror movie (or scary videogame) knows I'm not necessarily the best person for when there's things jumping out and loud, scary, sudden noises. I almost had a heart attack during M. Night Shyamalan's Signs, which proves I'm a humongous coward.
So, turns out Drag Me To Hell is basically all cheap scares for the first half of the movie. I had to watch it with my eyes covered. I still wrenched every muscle, joint and tendon in my body. Not going to be able to move tomorrow.
Oh--the movie is totally awesome. Dumb, stupid fun. Wheeee (ow)! Highly recommended if you like that kind of thing.
A terrifying moment from Drag Me To Hell. Eeeek! The Lamia!
1.) ACTUALLY THAT'S MUCH BETTER THAN I THOUGHT Earlier this evening I edited an absolute nightmare of a column by Paul Dechene who's a total jerk as it turns out. Dechene wrote the Top 6 for the upcoming prairie dog's news section. The topic--tying in with the recent G8 pledge to hold global warming under two degrees--involved him doing a pile of web research on what, exactly happens when the world heats by 2/3/6 degrees etc. Yeah, as you'd expect, it starts out pretty awful then rolls smoothly into nightmarish and apocalyptic. We might have to give our copy editor danger pay for reading the thing. It's completely terrifying. So yeah, thanks for that Paul.
Anyway, on a related note, this past Thursday the Guardian had an article on American beliefs about climate change. A recent poll, the paper reports, shows that only 47 per cent of Americans believe climate change is a serious problem. Yeah, well, you know what? Given the state of public education in the U.S., which is constantly under siege by mystics, morons, dipshits and douchebags, along with the stresses caused by widespread poverty, economic collapse, hyper-religiosity, psychotic mass media and other well-documented, massive national failures, I think the fact that the 47 per cent of Americans have any grasp of reality whatsoever is cause to cheer. I'm not being facetious or sarcastic. This is much, much better than I would've hoped for.
You can read the Guardian's article here. Oh--surprisingly, Republicans are more skeptical about climate change than Democrats. Which makes sense since studies have long shown Republicans are also more likely to be stupid jerks.
2.) Hey, if you're not depressed about climate change and human stupidity (which, as I just said, is actually not as bad as feared, thank goodness for small mercies) you could try reading this Paul Krugman article in the New York Times. Realllllly depressing. It'll knock you right down. A quote:
"Put it this way: if the consensus of the economic experts is grim, the consensus of the climate experts is utterly terrifying. At this point, the central forecast of leading climate models — not the worst-case scenario but the most likely outcome — is utter catastrophe, a rise in temperatures that will totally disrupt life as we know it, if we continue along our present path. How to head off that catastrophe should be the dominant policy issue of our time. But it isn’t, because climate change is a creeping threat rather than an attention-grabbing crisis."
Hooray! Hooray for doomsday scenarios!
3.) Speaking of Dechene, we went to a movie tonight. We're a couple of high-class, art-loving joes so naturally we went to Drag Me To Hell, the Sam Raimi horror-comedy now playing at the Rainbow. Yeah, so, anyone who's ever watched me watch a horror movie (or scary videogame) knows I'm not necessarily the best person for when there's things jumping out and loud, scary, sudden noises. I almost had a heart attack during M. Night Shyamalan's Signs, which proves I'm a humongous coward.
So, turns out Drag Me To Hell is basically all cheap scares for the first half of the movie. I had to watch it with my eyes covered. I still wrenched every muscle, joint and tendon in my body. Not going to be able to move tomorrow.
Oh--the movie is totally awesome. Dumb, stupid fun. Wheeee (ow)! Highly recommended if you like that kind of thing.
A terrifying moment from Drag Me To Hell. Eeeek! The Lamia!
7.06.2009
Monday Night Eco-Rage
Just read a great June 28 article by economist Paul Krugman in the (online) New York Times on a climate change bill the United States House Of representatives passed last week.
It's a furious piece full of the kind of outrage usually monopolized by the Limbaughs, Coulters and O'Reillys--but unlike those bullies' nasty little efforts it has the full intellectual and moral authority of a Nobel Prize winner behind it.
Krugman acuses the climate-change-denying politicians who voted against the bill of treason. His exact words: "And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet."
Oh, grrr! Grrr!
Read the whole thing here. You should check it out so the next time some outside-the-box thinker (or amateur oil-industry apologist) tells you they don't believe in global warming you can politely inform them that their views may amount to crimes against humanity. Which, though harsh, is probably a fair comment at this stage of the north-pole-melting game.
Plus it's a great line to use when a party's getting boring and you want to liven up the conversation. Bonus!
It's a furious piece full of the kind of outrage usually monopolized by the Limbaughs, Coulters and O'Reillys--but unlike those bullies' nasty little efforts it has the full intellectual and moral authority of a Nobel Prize winner behind it.
Krugman acuses the climate-change-denying politicians who voted against the bill of treason. His exact words: "And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet."
Oh, grrr! Grrr!
Read the whole thing here. You should check it out so the next time some outside-the-box thinker (or amateur oil-industry apologist) tells you they don't believe in global warming you can politely inform them that their views may amount to crimes against humanity. Which, though harsh, is probably a fair comment at this stage of the north-pole-melting game.
Plus it's a great line to use when a party's getting boring and you want to liven up the conversation. Bonus!
6.08.2009
"Global Warming Is Baloney"
It must be true because a Burger King franchise holder says so (Guardian).
6.03.2009
Walking to School: A Radical, Dangerous Idea
I kicked off a really glorious Wednesday of wandering around the city at 8:30 this morning by taking my daughter out to join the Walking Schoolbus.
The event was put together by Carla Beck and others through the Real Renewal group. It was a dry run at something they're hoping will take off this September. Basically, the idea is that kids will get together in the morning with some chaperons and walk to school together, gathering more and more kids along the way. Going to school in a big group is a way to mitigate all those nasty parts of walking there that parents fret over -- cars being the primary threat.
And, there are other benefits, like keeping kids active and fostering a local community. Plus, it can reduce the number of cars needed to shuttle students to and from school.
The kickoff event this morning was a big success. Over 70 kids and parents showed up to make the trek from the Holy Rosary playground to Connaught school. And some of the local media made it out too. Didn't hurt that it was just about perfect weather for it.
You'd think this would be the kind of progressive, feel-good, cost-them-nothing kind of idea our public school board would be getting behind. Promoting even.
Sadly, no.
According to Beck, she was advised that for "liability issues" Regina Public Schools could not get behind or promote the Walking Schoolbus.
In fact, Beck mentioned that she was contacted on Monday by Regina Public Schools director, Don Holum. In what she described as a cordial conversation, he told her how he supported the "idea" of kids walking to school but that so much has changed in the last 50 years that he couldn't support the Walking Schoolbus. He cautioned her about liability issues and suggested that she didn't know what she was opening herself up to liabilitywise.
Beck counters by pointing out that the Walking Schoolbus is hardly a radical idea.
"I didn't make this up," she says. "It's well established around the world."
She notes that organizations across Canada are supporting Walking Schoolbuses in their communities. Organizations such as Safe Kids Canada, the government of Manitoba and the city of Saskatoon.
Of course, one has to wonder if there isn't more to RPS's opposition to the Walking Schoolbus than mere concern for student safety on the wild and wooly streets of Cathedral. The event was organized through Real Renewal, afterall. They're the group organizing against the school board's 10 year plan. And RPS are noted boosters of that 10-year plan.
I asked Carla Beck if the Walking Schoolbus was something of a polite protest against the plan. She replied, "It is."
While she notes it's an idea she's been intrigued by for years (and she thinks she first read about it in Today's Parent magazine), she says, "What solidified the need in my mind to start [a Walking Schoolbus] here as a broader movement was what I heard around the board’s 10-year plan and community response to it."
She says that her children go to Connaught School where they're enrolled in French immersion. if the board's plan comes to fruition, they'll be bused to Massey, a forty minute ride.
And, she notes, the goal of the plan is that at the end of its 10 years, 46 per cent of elementary school kids will be bused to school.
It's an alarming idea if you're one of those people like me who believes in the considerable benefits of walkable communities. And thanks to legitimate concerns over global warming, energy scarcity and peak oil, making communities more walkable is a cornerstone of most city and neighbourhood plans these days. (Take our own Downtown and Core Neighbourhood Plans for instance.)
Keeping schools small, numerous and one of the central features of communities is essential to making neighbourhoods pedestrian friendly.
It's a no brainer, then, that building a school plan around the idea of shipping kids out of their communities is short-sighted and half-baked.
But the public school board seems hell-bent on getting their 10-year plan through. No big surprise then that they wouldn't be big fans of the Walking Schoolbus. As one parent I was speaking to during the walk pointed out, if you have a bunch of people organizing around the idea of walking their kids to school and then you try to get rid of their school, you have a group of people already mobilized against you.
"It was trippy," says Beck, "at last night's Scott [Collegiate] meeting, [Trustee] Russ Marchuk was saying if the horse is dead get off. Well, excepting [Trustee and prairie dog columnist] John Conway, the dead horse they’re riding is not the small school model it's this 10-year plan."
"I think the only way to stop them," she concludes, "is to change the board."
And October 28, Regina will get a chance to do just that.
The event was put together by Carla Beck and others through the Real Renewal group. It was a dry run at something they're hoping will take off this September. Basically, the idea is that kids will get together in the morning with some chaperons and walk to school together, gathering more and more kids along the way. Going to school in a big group is a way to mitigate all those nasty parts of walking there that parents fret over -- cars being the primary threat.
And, there are other benefits, like keeping kids active and fostering a local community. Plus, it can reduce the number of cars needed to shuttle students to and from school.
The kickoff event this morning was a big success. Over 70 kids and parents showed up to make the trek from the Holy Rosary playground to Connaught school. And some of the local media made it out too. Didn't hurt that it was just about perfect weather for it.
You'd think this would be the kind of progressive, feel-good, cost-them-nothing kind of idea our public school board would be getting behind. Promoting even.
Sadly, no.
According to Beck, she was advised that for "liability issues" Regina Public Schools could not get behind or promote the Walking Schoolbus.
In fact, Beck mentioned that she was contacted on Monday by Regina Public Schools director, Don Holum. In what she described as a cordial conversation, he told her how he supported the "idea" of kids walking to school but that so much has changed in the last 50 years that he couldn't support the Walking Schoolbus. He cautioned her about liability issues and suggested that she didn't know what she was opening herself up to liabilitywise.
Beck counters by pointing out that the Walking Schoolbus is hardly a radical idea.
"I didn't make this up," she says. "It's well established around the world."
She notes that organizations across Canada are supporting Walking Schoolbuses in their communities. Organizations such as Safe Kids Canada, the government of Manitoba and the city of Saskatoon.
Of course, one has to wonder if there isn't more to RPS's opposition to the Walking Schoolbus than mere concern for student safety on the wild and wooly streets of Cathedral. The event was organized through Real Renewal, afterall. They're the group organizing against the school board's 10 year plan. And RPS are noted boosters of that 10-year plan.
I asked Carla Beck if the Walking Schoolbus was something of a polite protest against the plan. She replied, "It is."
While she notes it's an idea she's been intrigued by for years (and she thinks she first read about it in Today's Parent magazine), she says, "What solidified the need in my mind to start [a Walking Schoolbus] here as a broader movement was what I heard around the board’s 10-year plan and community response to it."
She says that her children go to Connaught School where they're enrolled in French immersion. if the board's plan comes to fruition, they'll be bused to Massey, a forty minute ride.
And, she notes, the goal of the plan is that at the end of its 10 years, 46 per cent of elementary school kids will be bused to school.
It's an alarming idea if you're one of those people like me who believes in the considerable benefits of walkable communities. And thanks to legitimate concerns over global warming, energy scarcity and peak oil, making communities more walkable is a cornerstone of most city and neighbourhood plans these days. (Take our own Downtown and Core Neighbourhood Plans for instance.)
Keeping schools small, numerous and one of the central features of communities is essential to making neighbourhoods pedestrian friendly.
It's a no brainer, then, that building a school plan around the idea of shipping kids out of their communities is short-sighted and half-baked.
But the public school board seems hell-bent on getting their 10-year plan through. No big surprise then that they wouldn't be big fans of the Walking Schoolbus. As one parent I was speaking to during the walk pointed out, if you have a bunch of people organizing around the idea of walking their kids to school and then you try to get rid of their school, you have a group of people already mobilized against you.
"It was trippy," says Beck, "at last night's Scott [Collegiate] meeting, [Trustee] Russ Marchuk was saying if the horse is dead get off. Well, excepting [Trustee and prairie dog columnist] John Conway, the dead horse they’re riding is not the small school model it's this 10-year plan."
"I think the only way to stop them," she concludes, "is to change the board."
And October 28, Regina will get a chance to do just that.
5.21.2009
Imported Pests, Futile Fences
If you've picked up the new prairie dog, make sure to read Beatty's Top 6 on invasive species (page 5). Point number four is covers the rabbit scourge in West Australia. Since their introduction in the mid-19th century, the bad, bad bunnies have destroyed crops and imperiled native plants and animal species. You can read more here, on the website Rabbit Free Australia.
In the early 20th century, the government built a fence running the length of the country in a failed attempt to contain the horrible hares. Didn't work, but nice try. This link will take you to a photo of Australia's famous Rabbit Proof Fence.
In the early 20th century, the government built a fence running the length of the country in a failed attempt to contain the horrible hares. Didn't work, but nice try. This link will take you to a photo of Australia's famous Rabbit Proof Fence.
5.14.2009
Running On Air
.jpg)
So today's Guardian has a story about a made-in-France, production-ready car that's powered by compressed air. It's perfect for city driving. It's inexpensive. Air France KLM and Indian car maker Tatu are investing. Read it all here. Wow.
Questions (rhetorical):
1.) Why was this developed in Europe and not North America? (Answer: because we suck.)
2.) Does our oil-loving prime minister realize that the age of fossil fuel is coming to an end? What's he doing to prepare Canada for this changing world economy? (Answers: nope and nothing)
3.) Are Saskatchewan politicians aware that apparently saner nations want to get over their destructive addiction to oil and they're moving in that direction regardless of the impact on Saskatchewan's petroleum-powered economy? Are we ready for this resource export-weak future? (Answers: dunno but probably not, and no, we're totally screwed.)
Well, good for France, Europe and India. As for Canada, to invoke teh Internet parlance:
Epic.
Fail.
5.12.2009
Harper's War on Science
.jpg)
Scientists -- credible scientists, that is -- are appalled to have discovered that Harper's been stacking the boards of various scientific bodies with climate change deniers. Most recently, he installed Mark Mullins, Executive Director of the right-wing Fraser Institute, to the board of Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), while he appointed John Weissenberger to the board of Canadian Foundation for Innovation, a funder of large research projects. Read a more detailed account at DeSmog Blog. Or an equally detailed but more diplomatic one at the Globe and Mail.
Add to this the fact that Harper is actively defunding curiousity-driven scientific research, is out there provoking and angering the scientific community, and has installed a science and technology minister who is not only a chiropractor (SkepticWiki on chiropractic) but also very likely an evolution denier (or at the very least an evolution not-understanderer), and what you get is a medieval, science-hating government of ignorance. Bring on the Dark Ages. No wonder the credible scientists are packing up and leaving our fair Dominion.
Add to this the fact that Harper is actively defunding curiousity-driven scientific research, is out there provoking and angering the scientific community, and has installed a science and technology minister who is not only a chiropractor (SkepticWiki on chiropractic) but also very likely an evolution denier (or at the very least an evolution not-understanderer), and what you get is a medieval, science-hating government of ignorance. Bring on the Dark Ages. No wonder the credible scientists are packing up and leaving our fair Dominion.
4.29.2009
Murray Mandryk Today
There's a lively column by the L-P's political writer in today's paper. The topic: the Saskatchewan Party government's two-faced monkeyshines on the environmental file. For those who missed the news, last week the Saskatchewan Party said it was scrapping Saskatchewan's greenhouse gas reduction targets and harmonizing with federal targets--despite campaign promises to meet the NDP's 2020 targets. (Links to the Leader-Post)
Mandryk slams the government for saying one thing during the last election campaign, then doing another. Well, duh, there's a surprise. But this news isn't what matters. What matters is Mandryk's extremely entertaining prose.
Mandryk's outrage is a little bit misplaced (then again he's writing one column, not a comprehensive position paper, so cut him some slack, Whitworth). Anyone with a working brain now realizes that conservative politicians are the worst of a really bad bunch on environmental issues.* They don't understand/have contempt for science, they don't value conservation, they ruthlessley attack their critics and they consistently resist attempts to move their countries to sustainable energy systems like solar and wind power.
Bush was a monster. Harper is a monster. And anyone surprised by this just hasn't been paying attention.
It's also problematic that these issues fall under provincial jurisdiction rather than federal. Global warming is't a regional problem and the policy ought to come from the feds.
But I'm blahblahblahing here. Go read Mandryk's column, it's good and fun.
*Don't get me started on the federal Liberals, who should be jailed for their Kyoto failures.
Mandryk slams the government for saying one thing during the last election campaign, then doing another. Well, duh, there's a surprise. But this news isn't what matters. What matters is Mandryk's extremely entertaining prose.
Mandryk's outrage is a little bit misplaced (then again he's writing one column, not a comprehensive position paper, so cut him some slack, Whitworth). Anyone with a working brain now realizes that conservative politicians are the worst of a really bad bunch on environmental issues.* They don't understand/have contempt for science, they don't value conservation, they ruthlessley attack their critics and they consistently resist attempts to move their countries to sustainable energy systems like solar and wind power.
Bush was a monster. Harper is a monster. And anyone surprised by this just hasn't been paying attention.
It's also problematic that these issues fall under provincial jurisdiction rather than federal. Global warming is't a regional problem and the policy ought to come from the feds.
But I'm blahblahblahing here. Go read Mandryk's column, it's good and fun.
*Don't get me started on the federal Liberals, who should be jailed for their Kyoto failures.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}