[Abeja de Almirante]

Now is Harper's opportunity to demonstrate that he is suitable to govern. By the next election, the Conservatives will either get a majority or be thrown back to opposition status against McKenna's Liberals.

I imagine Layton's happy, as Olivia is now available in Ottawa.

 

[shawnmicallef]

Olivia's now available in Ottawa? wtf?

 

[building babel]

My dream, Jack and Olivia running the country, is moving closer to reality.

And with no seats in T.O., Montreal or Vancouver - the wealth-generators of the Country - the Conservatives are a party of the hinterlands, embodying the values of "economic dependency" that Harper claimed to see in the Maritimes.

 

[EnviroTO]

Olivia's now available in Ottawa? wtf?

:rollin Hopefully a poor choice of words and not a freudian slip.

 

[EnviroTO]

And with no seats in T.O., Montreal or Vancouver - the wealth-generators of the Country - the Conservatives are a party of the hinterlands, embodying the values of "economic dependency" that Harper claimed to see in the Maritimes.

Are those three cities the revenue generators of the country now that oil prices are high and Alberta is getting rich? With oil revenues rising quite quickly I'm wondering if Ontario could possibly become a receiver in the equalization at some point... but then again there seems to special deals to ensure that oil producing maritime provinces don't come off the transfer too fast and now Harper is talking about exempting revenues from non-renewable resources from the equation. I really don't get that... have income from renewable resources then share it with everyone... make revenue by consuming the planet then don't share it? Rewarding for non-sustainability... must be part of his environmental plan. Anyways I wonder how quickly the equalization program would loose support if Ontario needed it.

 

[rbtaylor]

now Harper is talking about exempting revenues from non-renewable resources from the equation.

If you take that revenue out there is a chance that Alberta would become a have-not province again like it was back in the 50's before the feds started counting oil revenue.

 

[bizorky]

Wow, Enviro, I don't know if it was intentional or not, but you sound a little like a true believer when it comes to the Green Party (not accusing you). For me, big platitudes and broad statements about the environment and the human interaction/relationship have to be taken with many grains of salt (which is a natural substance, but part of which is chlorine and quite harmful to humans - I'm being a smart-ass with a point).

I am not one of those individuals who thinks one has to know everything before one acts, but the choices of metaphors, ideologies, attitudes, platititudes and polemical statements can alter how an issue is approached, understood and ultimately dealt with. What I want is more clear thinking and less politicking around these issues.

Just to make a few points, and not belabour things, I think that so many of the words that float around, such as "unnatural," "sustainable" and even "environmentally friendly" for example, are loaded with meanings that differ between many people.

Do I think that some poor choices are being made with respect to the environment? Yes, that's why I want to see more research being carried out, but I want research as free as possible from unexamined and politically-loaded notions such as "unnatural," and "environmentally-friendly," because those terms can mean so much to so many people, or be meaningless altogether.

I'm talking about the human race, not human individuals as in increasing rates of athsma, more allergies, more vision defects, etc.

So we can tally up ailments, but what does this mean? What are the causes of these ailments? Are these actually numbers that are only now being reported? Have they actually been increasing in numbers? Is it a by-product of more thorough data collection, a better understanding of the nature of these ailments, a result of increased population, or too much or too little exposure to something? It's easy to collect up a bunch of problems and generate a correlation, but a correlation does not provide details or a clear understanding of causation, and for that you have to look individually many times over simply because big numbers can obscure the clear understanding of what is going on. So long as we live in the environment that we do, people will keep on being affected by it. Bacterial and viral infections are natural processes. We are natural processes, too, and only now is it being understood that natural genetic variability plays an immense role in causing many illnesses (which would by extension then be quite "natural").

I'm not talking about argiculture... I'm talking about using unnatural feed for animals, using chemicals to grow plants, and chemicals to kill pests.

I see the point you are trying to make, but my reference is to the term "unnatural." What does that mean? Sure, you may not be talking about agriculture, but it is in fact "unnatural," it is an activity only about 10,000 years old. Only people do it, and in doing so everything that follows would be "unnatural." The cattle, the pigs, the birds, the plants, the plant feeding processes, the land use, the irrigation and so on are all unnatural. The animals and plants are products of artificial selection; the land use is one of selecting only some plants to grow on selected lands, and the growing techniques are not natural. The lands are fertilized to replace nutrients and soil materials removed with the harvesting; the irrigation is a process of redirecting waterflow to these selected lands and controlling that waterflow; and there is the control of of animals and insects that would otherwise take advantage of the concentration of certain plants. My point is that we find oursleves dependant on our abilities to do the "unnatural." The call to introduce "natural" processes to farming activities sugarcoats the notion that farming will always be "unnatural" to those who want to cut clear distinctions between human activities and the world around them.

 

[EnviroTO]

Wow, Enviro, I don't know if it was intentional or not, but you sound a little like a true believer when it comes to the Green Party (not accusing you).

I am a believer in sustainability and science and don't believe that economy should be allowed to come before the environment. I think the Green Party represents that view greater than the other parties which talk environment and cut ribbons on things that don't fit the talk. I don't know if this is intentional or not but you come across as someone with very little concern at all about the environment and would prefer for the world to solve its own problems without getting you and your life or vote involved (not accusing you).

Just to make a few points, and not belabour things, I think that so many of the words that float around, such as "unnatural," "sustainable" and even "environmentally friendly" for example, are loaded with meanings that differ between many people.

Unnatural might be a bad choice of words but the point is that each organism has certain dietary requirements, certain habitat requirements, certain regular life processes, etc and those would constitute a "natural" balance in that organisms life. If you have a better word than natural to sum up the normal lifestyle, nutritive, chemical, etc, etc, balance other than natural then thats fine. Sustainable means something and sure some people misuse the term, not environmentalists normally, but some others certainly do. Anyone that says "sustainable growth" in a sentence is probably misusing the term because the likelihood of something being able to grow infinitely without some kind of resource constraint is far fetched. I however fully understand that sustainable in its purest sense means "can continue on indefinitely without meeting resource constraints or other obstacles". I'm not sure how people would be misusing "environmentally friendly" unless they are overly simplistic and mean "environmentally friendly this week" or are simply lying.

Yes, that's why I want to see more research being carried out, but I want research as free as possible from unexamined and politically-loaded notions such as "unnatural," and "environmentally-friendly," because those terms can mean so much to so many people, or be meaningless altogether.

I think protecting the environment is a little more simple than that and doesn't require much research. Research can find the negative impacts of our actions and guide us to the specific change we need to make to address a specific negative outcome, but sustainability is a little more straight forward in that we only need to ask the question "how will what we are consuming from the environment and releasing into the environment be balanced by an equal and opposite event (or series of events) so that the consumed resource continues to be available indefinitely and the released product does not build up in the environment".

It's easy to collect up a bunch of problems and generate a correlation, but a correlation does not provide details or a clear understanding of causation, and for that you have to look individually many times over simply because big numbers can obscure the clear understanding of what is going on. So long as we live in the environment that we do, people will keep on being affected by it. Bacterial and viral infections are natural processes. We are natural processes, too, and only now is it being understood that natural genetic variability plays an immense role in causing many illnesses (which would by extension then be quite "natural&quot .

Yes, research is required to point a specific health problem to a specific cause or perhaps a multitude of additive causes. Research has already proven various chemicals to be toxins, research has already linked breathing problems to smoggy days, etc... what are we waiting for? Do we need researchers to find all the problems first? The toxins released when manufacturing PVC and the lack of reasonable recycling methods and markets for it are known and many other more recyclable plastics are capable of taking its place... what are we doing about it? Why bother with the research... just take every exhaust pipe from a factory and redirect it (with suitable oxygen for breathing) to the CEOs office and every liquid outlet to the CEOs drinking fountain and let him be the scientific test. If they are so certain that there is nothing wrong with what they are releasing into the environment then let them prove it. Of course I am just making a point with the CEOs office comment but seriously doing such a thing should be possible if the factory is truly "environmentally friendly". It shouldn't be the general public that carries the burden of proof that what certain individuals or companies are doing isn't damaging. Why do the research after rather than before?

The animals and plants are products of artificial selection; the land use is one of selecting only some plants to grow on selected lands, and the growing techniques are not natural.

Agreed and if they contain these changes to a specific area and do not release them into the environment at large there is no issue. The problem is that farms are not contained so genetically modified plants or animals can get out into the wild and screw everything up. Genetically modified plants in a lab or greenhouse pose little risk to the environment but if it is outside it has the ability to be spreading through the wilderness forcing other plants out. I don't think humans should be prevented from technical advancement in agriculture but the risk is not containing it from the environment.

The lands are fertilized to replace nutrients and soil materials removed with the harvesting; the irrigation is a process of redirecting waterflow to these selected lands and controlling that waterflow; and there is the control of of animals and insects that would otherwise take advantage of the concentration of certain plants. My point is that we find oursleves dependant on our abilities to do the "unnatural."

Irrigation deals with a renewable resource that poses little risk to the environment unless you are preventing water from reaching areas where it would have. Fertilization can occur by methods that do not require a fertilizer containing chemicals that are not normally found in the environment. There is more than one way to keep insects off plants including ones that don't use toxic substances. Long before there was chemicals sprayed on fields we were able to eat in sufficient quantities. The environment shouldn't be traded off for economic gain.

 

[dan e 1980]

thumbs up!

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

Why bother with the research... just take every exhaust pipe from a factory and redirect it (with suitable oxygen for breathing) to the CEOs office

I'd bet there would be a lot of R&D in hemp if you did that....

Kevin

 

[bizorky]

I don't know if this is intentional or not but you come across as someone with very little concern at all about the environment and would prefer for the world to solve its own problems without getting you and your life or vote involved

Why, because I ask questions? Important issues that hold the potential to have an impact on billions of human lives (and many other forms of life) absolutely demand clarification. Concerning my life, I thought you would pick up from my earlier post the idea that my life is involved in this world, as is every other life presently in existence on this planet. It is part of the "environment;" they can't be separated.

Maybe I am holding the Green Party up to higher standards because the party itself claims to be aspiring to fulfill larger goals than the other parties. That's their prerogative; but it does not make them, or the presuppositions of their platform beyond questioning. Besides, why would I bother to be asking these questions and trying to make certain points if I didn't give a crap in the first place?

I've read the Green Party Platform, I've attended all candidates meetings and I have talked to a number of Green Party candidates. From this experience I have encountered people had good intentions, but not much deep knowledge. That concerns me, not only with respect to the Green Party, but with the other parties as well.

Sustainable means something and sure some people misuse the term, not environmentalists normally, but some others certainly do. Anyone that says "sustainable growth" in a sentence is probably misusing the term because the likelihood of something being able to grow infinitely without some kind of resource constraint is far fetched.

Yes, sustainable means something, but nobody is to clear as to what. Does it mean fixed or unchanging? Does it mean zero population growth? Does it require a completely new economic model, one that does not yet exists? Is it some form of steady-state imposition on cultural ideals (to thwart the expectations of growth or even improvement)? Can "sustainability overcome the second law of thermodynamics (highly doubtful)? If it means an end to growth, what kinds of growth end? How will this be managed? Who decides the rules? How are they enforced? Does the idea potentially threaten human adaptibility in the face of an environment that is actually a very complex and dynamic system?

Research has already proven various chemicals to be toxins

Sorry to stop you here, but everything is chemical. We are complex biochemistry. As for the notion of toxic, here is a simple fact: everything is toxic in large enough quantities. This includes distilled water. One need not look to specific nasty culprits for this fact.

Genetically modified plants in a lab or greenhouse pose little risk to the environment but if it is outside it has the ability to be spreading through the wilderness forcing other plants out. I don't think humans should be prevented from technical advancement in agriculture but the risk is not containing it from the environment.

Certainly an interesting question, but one can't say for sure that once released into the environment that a genetically modified plant will spread through the wilderness forcing all other plants out. What research is this based on? What facts? Modified plants typically have what amount to rather minor alterations to their genome. It is like saying that modified animals and plants (by way of selective breeding and artificial selection) would automatically wipe out every other animal in the environment by virtue of the fact that they exist. Poorly thought-out attempts at wildlife management have done greater damage in many instances.

The only piece of evidence to support this conjecture is indirect, but important and rather ironic. It is with the introduction of completely natural (unmodified) species into new environments that we can often find native species under intense pressure. This should certainly be a red flag of sorts when considering introducing genetically modified species into the environment (as some of them are engineered to potentially reduce susceptibility to their typical predators).

I say ironic since the continuous introduction of novel species into ecosystems, and their competition/cooperation is central to that important process of the diversification of life: natural selection.

To conclude, we've gotten way off topic.

 

[adma]

Maybe the whole issue re Green is: sure, the fundamental principles may be good, but, politically speaking, is raw environmentalism *everything*?

I mean, advance the Greens all you want, but there remains an offputting and insular savantism there that Tory-Lib-NDP hasn't got...

 

[EnviroTO]

Does it mean fixed or unchanging?

No. It means net zero change on a physical level on the planet but not no change in any specific area. It means the most energy we can use is that which we can capture from power sources that derive from the sun on an annual basis.

Does it mean zero population growth?

At this point yes I beleive it does because I don't think the resources exist for everyone to live at the same level and there is no point in continuing the growth of the human population unless we are sending them off world. Is the goal to pack the planet with humans till every square foot is like the subway at rush hour? It doesn't necessarily mean net zero population growth in all areas since population can be redistributed, but there should be zero population growth in the human population worldwide. Since we cannot regulate zero population growth in other countries we should probably aim for zero population growth here until some international agreement can be put in place so that we are not contributing to the problem.

Does it require a completely new economic model, one that does not yet exists?

Yes and No. Other countries one the earth have reached a zero population growth rate so the economic model isn't completely new... but it is new in Canada at a national level definitely. Our current economic model in North America is based on growth and as such is filled with imbalances. Suburbs get most of their funding from growth and once they have filled their boundaries they have funding shortfalls. Companies try to show shareholders record growth year after year but it is impossible without reducing the quality of life of others. There needs to be a balance of companies collapsing and companies growing because otherwise the system is simply increasing the divide between rich and poor or is failing to reward efficiency.

Is it some form of steady-state imposition on cultural ideals (to thwart the expectations of growth or even improvement)?

Cultural values and technology can exist and improve or change if they do not impact the environment. If you are asking whether our cultural ideals might be forced to change to adapt to the reality of zero population growth then perhaps yes but how those ideals would change is only limited by resource usage and waste constraints. One can take the same base materials found in a car, reclaim those materials, and still create a more advanced car.

Can "sustainability overcome the second law of thermodynamics (highly doubtful)?

Of course not. Quite the opposite it realizes that without a sustainable source of energy the earth will tend towards chaos. The only sustainable sources of energy are those derived from the sun in the amount received on an annual basis. Of course at some point a long long time from now (hopefully) the sun will run out of power too and hopefully we will be exploring space by then if we want to ensure our survival.

If it means an end to growth, what kinds of growth end?

Growth that impacts the environment ends and growth which requires more energy than is available from renewable sources ends. Growth of the human body doesn't end, growth of total human knowledge doesn't end, growth of the wealth of a specific individual doesn't end (for some it will as it does now), etc.

How will this be managed? Who decides the rules? How are they enforced?

Just as public health policy, current environmental policy, current fiscal policy, etc are maintained. Did you require this level of detail on the platform of the party you selected? Anyone could pick apart every political policy that was presented by the Conservatives, the Liberals, and the NDP to a detailed level and find holes. Tell me who you voted for and I will show you how their platform has similar unanswered questions. Policy is about priorities and isn't a detailed implementation plan. One needs to spend significant amounts of money to even chart the course but until the course is made a priority it won't be charted.

Does the idea potentially threaten human adaptibility in the face of an environment that is actually a very complex and dynamic system?

No. We are limiting our adaptability by using up our oil, gas, and nuclear resources and causing the extinction of the diversity of life that exists here already. If we live only using that energy which we can get from the sun and related sources (hydro, biomass, wind) then oil, gas, and nuclear power remains for those unforseen problems down the road. By draining the energy reserves of the planet we are limiting our ability to deal with the future. Using those energy sources is akin to selling assets to pay this months regularly occurring costs... eventually you run out of assets to sell and go bankrupt.

I would really like to know who you voted for so I can ask you questions about their platform.

 

[EnviroTO]

Maybe the whole issue re Green is: sure, the fundamental principles may be good, but, politically speaking, is raw environmentalism *everything*?

I mean, advance the Greens all you want, but there remains an offputting and insular savantism there that Tory-Lib-NDP hasn't got...

The Greens have hade some headway in this area compared to the last election realizing that they need to also show where they stand on other issues. I think that they have taken a good approach to applying sustainability principals to other policies such as healthcare costs are driven up by the poor general health of the population before they show up at the hospital and that dealing with health of the general population is as important as having a healthcare system. If they take that approach further crime is driven up by factors that lead to the crime being committed so a system to deal with factors leading to crime is as important as a criminal justitice system (i.e. police, courts, jail, rehab), the economy is driven not only by companies and employees but also by the education of employees and that by increasing the value of an employee increases the amount that employee is likely to pay back in taxes thus education pays for itself and government money put into education is not a waste or drain at all and instead is an investment. They touched on some of these points in the policy specific debates using more seasoned Green party members but since most people don't watch CPAC and the Greens weren't invited to the big televised debate thes topics weren't discussed much. Anyone that caught the education debate would have seen a Green party that is about more than just the environment and is more focused on the cycles that exists.

There is more to be done and looking at the progress that they have made between 2004 and 2006 it looks like they are on the right course. The big issue once they have expanded their platform will be the difficulty in getting the word out. Perhaps they should do the policy (not entirely related to the environment) per day announcements similar to the Conservative approach to try and increase their exposure next time around. In any case I think the Green party realizes this perceived weakness and is trying to change the tune a bit which is growing membership but alienating some of the original membership which might be a little over the top. I look forward to them being louder on the other issues in the future.

 

[Abeja de Almirante]

It is interesting how our perception of science changes from generation to generation. When malaria was killing people, we praised the advent of chemicals and new drainage techniques to kill of mosquitos. When locust swarms and potato bugs wipe out crops, causing mass famine, hardship and starvation we praised the advent of pesticides to keep the food. When people were dying of diabetes, cancer and dangerous viruses we praised the advent of insulin, chemotherapy and vaccinations.

Now that we've got the above, we complain that the pesticides are bad, modern medicine is bad (hometherapy and "natural" medicine is better), vaccinations cause autism, etc... Meanwhile, Canadians have never lived so long as they do today.

This has led us to believe that somehow "natural foods" are better for us. However, the marketeers have quickly realised how silly the consumer is, and thus we now have "free range chickens" (meaning only that a door has been left open at the chicken shed, giving some birds the option of going outside), "grain feed chickens" (in the wild, ground birds, such as wild grouse, chickens, etc... do not eat grain, they eat worms, insects, animal waste and carcasses.

I for one am pleased that science has kept Canada's food supply safe from insects and other risks, and that modern medicine and good foods will likely keep myself and my family alive well into our 80s. Try making that boast as an adult in 1806 or 1906.