Al Gore slams the tories' new environmental plan!

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Its easy for Suziki and Gore to preach to the government since they're not running a country, they're litke any lobby group, they only care about thier own issues, unlike the governent that has to balance about a billion different issues to make the country work.

Just like its easy for Dion to stand up and say that he's a green candidate and that he cares about the environment, he has to fight for votes, and he certainly dosen't have to worry about the effects that his promises have on the country until he gets elected, then he'll do what he did when he was in the government, which is nothing.

Yes the green issues our important, but they can't be a national suicide pact unless all of the nations involved are willing to make the same sacrifices.

Personally, I've met Suziki, and I think he's an ass and a hypocrite, but as long as the Green issues keep making money for him and his foundation, Bully for him.

So only when agreement is unanimous with all countries should one act?
Using that logic guess we better pull out of Afgahnistan and stop a whole lot of other stuff too. And I'm sure you were against the very contencious war in Iraq based on that same logic?

[sadora]

Originally Posted by Flame On

I wonder how many of you would pipe up if some right winger from the states came up here and said "hey don't turn green it'll kill your economy". You'd think he was a genius.
I love how you all think lobbyists; and in this case I don't think Gore really qualifies as one, are so bad in comparison to a bunch of politicians. Not too different, but I'm inclined to believe those with a majority of scientists behind them than a politician that, you know, wants to get re-elected.
And for those saying we're selling oil to his country, I bet he'd love that stopped so that's quite a foolish argument.

It's funny. There are many people in the US asking Gore to run again, seeing his recent popularity with this issue. But as of this point he's choosing to remain an environmentalist and not a politician.

One of the most common misconceptions with this issue is that fighting global warming will cripple the economy. If Canada truly embraces a low-carbon future and becomes a leader in renewable energy and energy-efficiency technologies, international carbon credits can also help Canada’s economy. Developing countries have to buy their low-carbon technologies from somewhere. If Canada chose to be a leader on this issue, that somewhere could be from Canadian business.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Flame On

So only when agreement is unanimous with all countries should one act?
Using that logic guess we better pull out of Afgahnistan and stop a whole lot of other stuff too. And I'm sure you were against the very contencious war in Iraq based on that same logic?

In the case of Kyoto, absolutely, In this case, I am all board with the goverment creating a reasonable green program that protects Canada's interest, economy and provides measures for the Environmnet, as opposed to Kyoto which punishes countries like Canada and forces them towards unrealistic and punative targets while letting some of the worst environmental offenders in the world to continue with a free hand, while getting Green Credits.

I am all for eventually pulling out of Afgahnistan if at the next deadline, NATO countries haven't bolstered thier commitments to supply more troups in the tougher combat areas. But again, this was a Canadian decision to enter into the war.

[Daradon]

The argument that green changes will hurt our economy in a large way is complete and utter bunk.

There will be change, there will be shift, but newer ideas and green solutions will take the place of old paradigms. It might be hard (and when I say hard I mean only SLIGHTLY more difficult than now) for consumers and industry for 5-6 years, but it will adapt very quickly.

The biggest losers might be the oil and gas industry but only if they refuse to change and introduce different products and ideas. They have the money to change and grow let them use it.

Exxon-Mobil posted a 10 BILLION dollar quarter. We all know from living in this city the small oil compaines and oil service companies are doing very well too. I don't feel sorry for them in the slightest. Nor do I believe that changing a few things about they way we live is going to be catastrophic for the economy.

People talk about environmental lobby groups. Well last time I checked, the oil and gas industry has way more to spend on lobby groups. They even have oil people in the White House.

That whole industry can grow up and take some responsibility. They're afraid they'll lose profits or become obsolete? Well then, they should have thought about that before trading a non-renewable resource.

They have the money and the power to grow and shift their business in green ways. All they need is a little fresh thinking.

It's evolution for something we badly need to do. It's not going to hurt as much as has been said. That's simply big money and oil and gas lobby propaganda. Greed is driving these decisions, not concern over the economy.

And a lot of people have bought right into it.

[guzzy]

Originally Posted by sadora

Its a weak plan. It does promise results, but far behind those of the rest of the world. Under the Tory plan, Canada would still be 30% short of its Kyoto commitments by the year 2020.

The Tory strategy focuses on reducing GHG emissions and improving air quality. But their plan fails to explain precisely what these regulations will be. The plan uses the concept developed by houston based think tanks, which were financed by Exxon a few years back, called "intensity reduction"

Unfortunately, intensity-based targets will do no such thing. Greenhouse gas "intensity" refers to the amount of greenhouse gases produced per unit of economic activity (GDP, for example). Since the atmosphere does not respond to intensity, but rather to actual greenhouse emissions, such targets will do little, if anything to fix the problem.

honestly....who cares about the rest of the world. The bottom line is if Australia and the US aren't there we shouldn't be either. If developing countries aren't....we shouldn't be. We need to set our own goals and be aggressive towards them. We are already 20% above our targets because the moronic liberals implemented Kyoto but never had a plan. They knew they wouldn't be around long enough to implement it. They had years.

[guzzy]

Originally Posted by Flame On

I wonder how many of you would pipe up if some right winger from the states came up here and said "hey don't turn green it'll kill your economy". You'd think he was a genius.
I love how you all think lobbyists; and in this case I don't think Gore really qualifies as one, are so bad in comparison to a bunch of politicians. Not too different, but I'm inclined to believe those with a majority of scientists behind them than a politician that, you know, wants to get re-elected.
And for those saying we're selling oil to his country, I bet he'd love that stopped so that's quite a foolish argument.

Gore is a politician. Gore IS running for the democrats in the next election. Glenn Beck had a panel of people (democrats and republicans) talking about Al Gore's movie, just last week. He kept saying that they invited people from greenpeace and other green lobby groups and none would come on the show in support of the documentary because of the amount of lies and stretched truths. He talks about how ice in Iceland and Antarctica is falling and melting because of global warming but he doesn't realize, or fails to tell the truth, that is because of calving not global warming. The ice stretches out to far and falls off. Believing this documentary is no different than watching a michael Moore movie and believing everything he says. If simple minded people want to believe everything Gore says that is their problem. I like to form my own opinions and think for myself. If I didn't want to think for myself I would become a jehovah witness

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Hmmmm, I didn't see where Gore attacked anyone. What I saw was the Greepeace advocate making somepretty inflamatory statements. I really didn't see much that can be attributed to Gore. I know, the tread wouldn't be quite as sexy to the usual navel gazers if Gore's name was not associated with it, and was not a lightning rod for hate. Change scares the crap out of conservatives, what is being suggested by those who believe in Global Warming (the same who believe in evolution, the earth being round, and sun being the center of our solar system) really makes them leave a deuce in their shorts.

Gore is not saying that we have to stop using fossil fuels. What he is saying is that we have to use them more efficiently and find better ways to do things that will not pollute out environment. Insert mindless conservative response here:

OH MY GOD!!! THAT IS THE END TO THE WORLD!!!

What Gore, and thousands of others like him, is saying is that we have the ability to make to changes that can clean up our act, making our environment better in the long run and leaving something for our children's children that will be better than what we have at present. Insert mindless conservative response here:

NO!!! GORE IS EVIL AND WANTS TO END OUR CIVILIZATION AS WE KNOW IT!!!

Maybe that is true. Maybe Gore, and people like him, want to end our civilization as we know it, but take it to a better place. Cleaning up our environment will not cause the downfall of our civilization, but the efforts we make to do so may take us down a new path that actually improves our civilization as a whole. Insert mindless conservative response here:

CHANGE IS EVIL!!! CHANGE WILL RUIN OUR LIVES!!!

Change is good. Without change we wouldn't have many of the things that we presently take for granted that make our lives so much easier than our parents. Without change (and ironically, Al Gore) we wouldn't have the internet and this forum to exchange ideas and let the conservatives hurl their feces at everyone. Insert mindless conservative response here:

FECES HURLING GOOD!!! FECES HURLING BEEN GOING ON FOR 5,500 YEARS, WHEN GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE!!!

Big ideas require big challenges, and this is likely the biggest challenge we have faced. The evidence is there for debate, and right or wrong, it should spurn many challenges for us all. America is a country that can do so much, but it has become fat and lazy, absorbed in a pool of selfishness and uncaring. Not since JFK has this country been challenged to do great things. The time has come for a new challenge and something to focus the industrial and intellectual might of this great nation, a challenge to awaken this slumbering (and grossly overweight) giant to again lead the world and do something great for all of humanity. Insert mindless conservative response here:

AMERICA DOES ENOUGH!!! AMERICA BUYS ALL OF THE JUNK GOODS THAT THESE THIRD WORLD NATIONS CAN MANUFACTURE!!! WHY SHOULD WE CHANGE THE WAY WE DO ANYTHING JUST SO SOME BOAT PEOPLE DON'T HAVE TO LIVE IN A TOXIC ENVIRONMENT? WHY SHOULD WE CHANGE A DAMN THING WHEN THE SYSTEM WORKS BEST FOR US?

What is being lost in all of this mindless raving is opportunity. At some point someone is finally going to let their balls drop and man up to the challenge. Those that do will reap the rewards as the rest of the world scambles to catch up. America SHOULD be leading the way. They have the intellectual advantage to make some of these ideas become reality. We have the advantage of having vast spaces of unused land and resources to make these dream become reality. We have the fiscal resources to meet the challenge, if we stop spending it all on the industrial military complex. If we channel the brains and the money of the nation toward meeting this lofty goal, we can experience a new age of innovation and growth in what we know and can do.

This is not an impossibility. Brazil has already taken a major first step and is 100% energy self sufficient. Their economy is based on renewable sources of energy, the majority of that coming from cane sugar ethanol. They have done this without making a major paradigm shift away from the combustion engine. If a huge country, with so much poverty, can do this, why can't the "industrial machine" of the world do it? Insert mindless conservative response here:

UBBA, I DON'T KNOW. Is that true? It can't be true. LIES!!! ALL LIES!!! FOSSIL FUELS MAKE THE WORLD GO ROUND!!! THIS IS A LIBERAL PLOT TO UNDERMINE OUR WAY OF LIFE AND DESTROY EVERYTHING WE HAVE AND ARE!!! LIES!!!

What Gore has been saying is that we need to find more efficient ways to do things. Thomas Friedman just finished an interesting documentary that outines many of the ideas that have been proposed to make us more green. Electricity is the clean alternative and is the fuel of the future, we just have to learn how to use it more efficiently. Insert mindless conservative response here:

THOMAS FRIEDMAN IS WINGNUT MOONBAT!!! ALL OF HIS IDEAS ARE INSANE AND ANYONE WHO READS THEM IS A WINGNUT MOONBAT TOO!!!

Yup, focus on the individual, not the message. Exactly where is the message that Friedman and Gore send out incorrect? What is wrong with innovation and change that could make our environment cleaner? What is wrong with exploring and developing new technologies? What is wrong with using what resources we have available to us more efficiently? No one has said that we have to stop driving cars, or using fossil fuels, or alterning our lifestyles dramatically. What they have said is that we have to change for the sake of the enviroment.

The energy contained in oil is not used efficiently. If oil was used to create electricity rather than running a combustion engine, the energy outout increases by a factor of 16,000. If we can shift to electric vehicles we can see an immediate return on our investment. Of course that hurts the oil companies as well as the auto manufactures, two of the most powerful lobbies in politics today, which is why the government does not encourage the change.

The unfortunate thing is that these companies don't realize that by making this shift they have the ability to make even more money and develop corporate growth much greater than they already experience. The shift to an electrical economy capable of handling such demands is going to require infrastructure, new technology, and sources of expertise. Those that develop this infrastructure and intelligence will control the new economy. These companies could be on the leading edge and guarantee themselves trillions in future profits, but instead they sit on the sidelines and rape the consumer and planet, and take in their short-term profits.

IMO, the technology is there. Through the use of new advancements in electrical and battery engineering, the electric vehicle is a reality. The ability to produce the energy required through clean means is here. High efficiency solar cells, wind turbines, nuclear power are all means to produce clean power. Changes in the way we use fossil fuels, and switching to electrical power generation, produces more energy and less polution. The use of bio-mass energy producing stations should become a standard in every community, adding even more energy to the grid. The technology is there, we just need to meet the challenge to use these technologies wisely. We do that, we can ease the impact we have on the environment and decrease our dependence on foreign oil. The only thing holding us back is the intestinal fortitude to do so and make these demands on our lawmakers.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by guzzy

Gore is a politician. Gore IS running for the democrats in the next election. Glenn Beck had a panel of people (democrats and republicans) talking about Al Gore's movie, just last week. He kept saying that they invited people from greenpeace and other green lobby groups and none would come on the show in support of the documentary because of the amount of lies and stretched truths. He talks about how ice in Iceland and Antarctica is falling and melting because of global warming but he doesn't realize, or fails to tell the truth, that is because of calving not global warming. The ice stretches out to far and falls off. Believing this documentary is no different than watching a michael Moore movie and believing everything he says. If simple minded people want to believe everything Gore says that is their problem. I like to form my own opinions and think for myself. If I didn't want to think for myself I would become a jehovah witness

Really!?!?! Where did you read that?

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Daradon

The argument that green changes will hurt our economy in a large way is complete and utter bunk.

There will be change, there will be shift, but newer ideas and green solutions will take the place of old paradigms. It might be hard (and when I say hard I mean only SLIGHTLY more difficult than now) for consumers and industry for 5-6 years, but it will adapt very quickly.

Riiight. Take away access to the largest or second largest reserve of oil on the planet and all we would have is a little shift.

If there were decent substitutes, they would have emerged, the next trillionaire on this planet will be one that can source energy that displaces oil on a large scale ... but it hasn't happened.

Back in real life, the planet needs oil. Environmentalists have the easy part, they can be populists and say less emissions and green green green! Politician are the one that have to deal with reality and need to actualy think about consquences of decisions.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by guzzy

Gore is a politician. Gore IS running for the democrats in the next election.

He is is he? Someone better tell him he needs to announce his candidacy and get his ass into the race. He's well behind the other candidate in fund raising is missing out on the priminary jockeying for his party's nomination. No nomination, no running for anyone. Unless Gore announces his intentions to challenge for the Democratic ticket, he's doing nothing. It is highly doubtful he runs, as he's found that he can have a greater impact as a private citizen than he could as a law maker.

Glenn Beck had a panel of people (democrats and republicans) talking about Al Gore's movie, just last week.

Would this be the same Glenn Beck that refers to himself as an entertainer? The same Glenn Beck that has made inflammatory comments directed at Democrats, Muslims, Arabs, Mexicans, women and homsexuals? The same Glenn Beck that has launched a smear campaign against Hillary Clinton and routinely uses information culled from the Arkansas Project (a project exposed as lies and innuendo by those who originally were paid by their RW agents to generate the materials) as his support? Would this also be the same Glenn Beck who is syndicated by Premiere, the same company that gives the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity their bully pulpits to preach from?

He kept saying that they invited people from greenpeace and other green lobby groups and none would come on the show in support of the documentary because of the amount of lies and stretched truths.

The lie you may want to consider exposing is the one where Beck says he invites people on his broadcasts, when he infact doesn't. He has been caught in this lie on more than a dozen occassions, saying he invited a particular person to appear on his program, yet the person in question had no contact with Beck or his production staff.

He talks about how ice in Iceland and Antarctica is falling and melting because of global warming but he doesn't realize, or fails to tell the truth, that is because of calving not global warming. The ice stretches out to far and falls off.

Are you f'n serious? Calving is a natural event, yes, but the rate at which it is taking place is not. When shelves the size of Rhode Island are breaking off from Antarctica, and when Greenland and chunks of Canada are seeing calving in unprescented scale, something is happening out of the ordinary. The problem isn't just the calving of the ice sheet into the ocean, it is also the dramatic decline in glaciers all over the planet. The NW passage is quickly becoming a viable shipping route as the waters are now staying ice free for the most part. Ice breakers are no longer needed to get commercial traffic through the passage for most of the season. This is not a good thing.

Oh, and to tell you how stupid Beck is, and how inaccurate his information is, he routinely confuses Iceland and Greenland and believes they are interchangeable.

Believing this documentary is no different than watching a michael Moore movie and believing everything he says.

Only difference is the data collected by the scientific community to back this theory up. Moore is a popular hatchet man, but Global Warming is an accepted and studied scientific theory. Moore's opinions are one man's. Global Warming is a collective theory.

If simple minded people want to believe everything Gore says that is their problem. I like to form my own opinions and think for myself. If I didn't want to think for myself I would become a jehovah witness

You might want to look in the mirror when you call anyone simple minded. You opinions are culled from the most suspect of sources.

[Rockin' Flames]

I find it interesting how we put so much faith in what Gore says when he was the former vice-president in the US and did nothing at that time. Of course it is easy to say what needs to be done when he is no longer in a position of power and does not need to worry about the impact on the economy.

[sadora]

Originally Posted by guzzy

honestly....who cares about the rest of the world.

Again, I hate to use a redundant answer but this is a GLOBAL issue and Harper's current plan does nothing to address this properly.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

I find it interesting how we put so much faith in what Gore says when he was the former vice-president in the US and did nothing at that time. Of course it is easy to say what needs to be done when he is no longer in a position of power and does not need to worry about the impact on the economy.

I don't think anyone is placing much faith in what "Gore" has to say, but is instead placing faith in the science that is being represented. Gore, BTW, has been doing this (similar) presentation for years. This is something that he has been very active in talking about and getting people to listen to. I think this is the reasn why he will not go back into politics. He understands that politics requires lawmakers to make decisions based on issues of the day, not long term problems. Global Warming is a long term problem than needs resolving and trying to do so in office would be next to impossible. You would need executive mandates to make many of these initiatives work, and that would require those mandates to transend persidential terms. Because of the bipolar situation in American politics, that is unlikely to happen. As sad as it is, it is easier to generate the change by going door-to-door than it is through government. If a ground swell of support in the zeitgeist can be developed, that can put the pressure on politicians to do more than pay lip service to the problem. Frankly, in corporate run America, the only way these problems are going to be changed is through consumer demand and corporations engaging the issues. Gore will have more impact by staying out of politics and communicating the issues to the world, having the people cast their votes with their dollars and spending habits.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

In the case of Kyoto, absolutely, In this case, I am all board with the goverment creating a reasonable green program that protects Canada's interest, economy and provides measures for the Environmnet, as opposed to Kyoto which punishes countries like Canada and forces them towards unrealistic and punative targets while letting some of the worst environmental offenders in the world to continue with a free hand, while getting Green Credits.

I am all for eventually pulling out of Afgahnistan if at the next deadline, NATO countries haven't bolstered thier commitments to supply more troups in the tougher combat areas. But again, this was a Canadian decision to enter into the war.

That's where we differ. I think its more important to come at this situation hard, take a leadership role and let the economy suffer and rebound/strengthen as it may, than to come up with a few "measures" as you put it. Can't float on a measure.
The reason I like the leadership role is because China has basically said that they think the developed countries caused the problem and should be the first to make changes. Sure the US needs to act and that is a big issue, but if countries begin to then that forces those like China to also.
Plus, in much the same way as peace keeping; being something Canada steps up to or at least has done traditionally, I'm proud of that.
Not much middle ground there my friend unfortunately, and that is the battle being waged.
And IMO the battle is slowly being won by the climate change crowd. Especially recently. While one could argue about the merrits of the Harper plan, if you told me even 6-8 months ago they'd have come up with a plan like that I would have been surprised. Is it pandering to the electorate? If you look at the poles that show what canadians are concerned about, you could say it is. But it still seems to be leaning that way.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by sadora

Again, I hate to use a redundant answer but this is a GLOBAL issue and Harper's current plan does nothing to address this properly.

I was unaware that Harper made decisions for the rest of the world.

[sadora]

Originally Posted by Azure

I was unaware that Harper made decisions for the rest of the world.

Okay, let me try this one again, because you seem to be unable to understand this properly. GHG emissions, GLOBAL warming, is a problem that affects EVERYONE, in EVERY part of the world. So yes, by presenting a weak environmental plan the Tories are making a decision that will affect not only us in Canada but every person in the world. Every political leader from every country has the responsibility to take action, that's why it is important for a country like Canada to take a leadership role.

[Slava]

All I can say is that even a casual observer can see that this is a weak plan. It doesn't really matter what Al Gore says, and who cares anyway?

The fact is that the largest GHG emitters in the country were breathing a huge sigh of relief after they saw the details. It looks to me like all of the costs of this plan are downloaded to the average guy. This is completely opposite to why they changed the income trust taxation of course, but that is another story...

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

I was unaware that Harper made decisions for the rest of the world.

When it comes to the environment, decisions by world leaders impact everyone.

[HOZ]

Gotta love the "IDEA" factories.

We need to be leaders....
innovaters...
lead the world...
designers....
creators...
active....
proactive....


To all our cultural superiors, you keep coming up with these ideas! Leave the real thinking to others. Consequences and implimentation problems be damned!

[sadora]

Originally Posted by HOZ

To all our cultural superiors, you keep coming up with these ideas! Leave the real thinking to others. Consequences and implimentation problems be damned!

Right. Because apathy is a much better answer.