July 09, 2008

50% by 2050

Yeah, that's right, 42 years, to bring down CO2 in the atmosphere to 2005 levels. Hold on, hasn't it pretty much been agreed upon by everyone that we need to be actually around 1987 levels or 350 ppm concentration? I don't even want to think about what that CO2 graph will look like in 42 years. (edit)Wait, now Harper wants the developing countries to should a large portion of the burden of lowering emissions, right, because North Americans per capita, pollute 5 to 6 times as much as most developing countries, and we have the money to fix the problem.

I want to be a politician and make lofty (yet still inadequate) goals at the end of my career for the next guy in line to follow, I really do. Or better yet, when they ask you later in life as you're sitting in the expensive restaurant drinking 50 year old scotch you can say "I tried, I really did, but there's no accounting for 's planning or bla bla bla". Oh and the photo shoot with the world leaders planting trees? How quaint. Why not just say "I'm planning for world peace in 2100", and release a bunch of doves, it's about as believable.

These guys are putting on a show because the public is concerned about climate change. It's an old tactic of conservative governments, make it look like you're doing something, like you care, so the populace goes back to their reality and jack-ass style TV shows; "Nothing to see folks, we're acting in your best interest". You can also bet that the lazy populace will go back and think 'Hyuk! Mah guvermnt is doin' stuff, so I don't have to! BRING ON the Monster trucks!"

This is sort of going off topic but I personally don't want to live in Alberta when the walls come crashing down. The rapid entrenchment of greed and scrambling for oil at the expense of everything else is sickening. I believe that so much is hidden about the impact of the oil sands that when the truth and environmental horror stories come out it's going to be a tale of destruction and woe. The big money is here and it's squelching the truth, and the residents don't want to / won't believe it or share it because it will affect their economic well-being.

Nature in northern Alberta seems endless, the trees and bush seem to go on forever, if you're from there it's easy to think that it's never going to end. That you are in a remote area and your actions won't affect others, or no one will find out. Take the death of all those ducks in the spring, do you actually think this is the first time this has happened? Probably the first time it was actually reported, but I can bet it's been going on since they first created those toxic ponds.

Posted by Oorgo at July 9, 2008 11:52 AM Permalink - Category: Environment | TrackBack

I hate politicians.

They all put on 'shows' as far as I'm concerned. Alberta Tar Sands have to be a bad thing for the earth, and Albertan's future ...no possible way to disagree with that. What I've recently come to a change of mind on is the absolutism that many 'global warmers' carry around with them. They cite examples and stats when, and I have done the same, they truly don't have all the facts. Or at least perhaps, they won't admit to not knowing all the facts. Who better to explain 'stats' then someone who actually knows where they are from and how they're computed. Numbers impress me, and I've come across a site that appears to be all about the numbers. Numbers don't lie ...it's their interpretations that are subject to error.

Here's a link to a post from it on something not quite 'number' related. Kinda.


Posted by: troy at July 9, 2008 09:51 PM
Get Firefox!