Quote:
Originally Posted by Pastiche
The debate on CO2 is pretty much the same. We know that CO2 is a warming gas, we know that it is having an effect on the climate and we know that the potential consequences could be disastrous. Do we play it safe?
|
Well according to Canada's Environmental Protection Act we should:
“Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to implementing the precautionary principle that, where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”
http://www.ec.gc.ca/CEPARegistry/the...troduction.cfm
Cue the what is "cost-effective" argument but then again what is the cost benefit of dealing with the already observed impacts both now and in the future. And what are the opportunities.
Quote:
In advance of UN climate talks next week in Copenhagen, more than 500 of Canada's leading scientists have issued an open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper warning that global warming is happening much faster than previously estimated and that government needs much more aggressive targets for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.....
... Dr. Schindler says that in the scientific community there is dismay over what is perceived as a lack of reaction by Ottawa to research showing the country is at risk of great damage. These projected effects include a greater frequency of droughts on the Prairies, forest destruction through the spread of pests such as the pine beetle, and infrastructure damage from melting permafrost.
"I really think the key people in our government don't believe in science at all," Dr. Schindler said.
|
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1386545/
Letter to be released later today.