Originally Posted by Auld Yin (Post 9792644)

Actually he's a comedic legend in his own mind and in his own home.

Originally Posted by Lord Vader (Post 9792585)

Carlin's point was that we are more caught up with the Earth serving our needs and how changes to the Earth (coastline, weather patterns) will affect humans and our lifestyle and habitat rather than about the health of the actual planet. The Earth doesn't care about coastline or where it rains, people do.

Originally Posted by laser558 (Post 9792618)

Yes and very succinctly put. I have already admitted that I am ignorant and not a scientist but I am aware that looking after what we have and re-using where we can is important not only to the economy but the environment. If we really want to "help" the planet then perhaps we should stop all manufacturing, we should stop using the computers we are using, or living in the houses that we build or eat the processed food we eat or stop driving the cars we drive...oh the list goes on and would it ever be possible in this day and age. I mean, we couldn't even go back 50 years without complaint so to go back a few hundred thousand is probably going to be impossible.

Originally Posted by iaink (Post 9792763)

Or we could just do what we know now would work, there is no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Put financial incentives in place to encourage discourage emmisions, use the available technology to generate emmision free power generation, etc etc etc. Where weath redistribution comes into it is with how to treat the emerging/ developing world, who are not financially able to do the above things.

Everyone knows what needs to be done, but no one wants to be the one to do it, and once someone pulls out of the agreement (ie Canada), the rest will fall like dominoes for fear of being at an economic disadvantage compared to those who shirk their responsibilities.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 9792789)

What is your solution to that problem then? Leave them in squalor or tax them the same as the rest of the world?

Who administers the tax and how is it used? Seems like another way for the developed world to benefit at the expense of the non-developed one. I am sure that Mr. Gore and Mr. Suzuki would love to get their mucky mitts on such funding.

Originally Posted by Former Lancastrian (Post 9792826)

Might I suggest that the posters who are really passionate about this subject try to arrange a sit down and discuss this matter perhaps a Timmies :rofl:

Originally Posted by iaink (Post 9792316)

You are aware that hes a comedian, not an environmental scientist, right?:blink:

Originally Posted by iaink (Post 9792821)

I dont have a solution, not my job guvnor;)

Originally Posted by Alan2005 (Post 9792872)

The solution involves legislation, taxes and the free market. No need to get all communist and totalitarian about it.

Originally Posted by Alan2005 (Post 9792687)

I'm not sure what your point is here. Is this a criticism of somebodies point of view?

When people talk about the planets health they are using a metaphor. Nobody in their right mind gives a shit about a bunch of rocks in and of themselves - of course we're only going to care about them in so far as their ability to support us.

Originally Posted by iaink (Post 9792875)

Cos the free market has worked so well so far right? That a bit like putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop if you ask me.

Originally Posted by Lord Vader (Post 9792881)

It wasn't my point Ally Cat, it was Carlin's point.

Originally Posted by Souvy (Post 9792861)

Just to clarify, he's a comedian and not an internationally renowned and much-published professor of atmospheric chemistry. Absolutely not.

Originally Posted by Alan2005 (Post 9792888)

Er, you missed off legislation and taxation. Free markets work perfectly well when there is moral hazard and a legislative framework to operate in. I'll grant you that it does require honest regulators that enforce laws rather than bought and paid for industry shills. Still, I think getting an honest regulator is more achievable than simply reverting to communism.

Originally Posted by iaink (Post 9792935)

the wealthy nations have to give something, money or technology, to the poorer ones.

Originally Posted by Alan2005 (Post 9792972)

Give? No, I disagree. Prosperity comes from trade not charity.

Originally Posted by iaink (Post 9792978)

Wont work, the developing nations simpley dont have the money for the technology, so they will go for the cheapest way to build their economies instead, and that will be the dirtiest way, as it was when the west built up its economies.

At the very least the developed nations will have to heavily subsidise the technology if they wish to benefit from the reduced emmisions. The simply isnt time anymore to wait for these economies to be able to afford to do "the right thing".

Originally Posted by iaink (Post 9792978)

Wont work, the developing nations simply dont have the money for the technology, so they will go for the cheapest way to build their economies instead, and that will be the dirtiest way, as it was when the west built up its economies.

At the very least the developed nations will have to heavily subsidise the technology if they wish to benefit from the reduced emmisions. There simply isnt time anymore to wait for these economies to be able to afford to do "the right thing".

Originally Posted by Alan2005 (Post 9792990)

All the solutions are easy - it's just that nobody wants to do them because we all want our $20 region free dvd players from wal-mart.

Originally Posted by iaink (Post 9792997)

Exactly, there is no collective financial will to actually address the issues, either at a personal level, or more importantly at a governmental level. Whether that's a 5.8L Vortec V8, or a $20 DVD player, a $2 pineapple, or a $10bn carbon offset plan . Something has to give, or else it looks grim for the Polar Bears.

Earlier you were saying that free market economics would fix the issue, now you have confused me...

Originally Posted by iaink (Post 9792997)

To me the globalisation of the economy is half the problem, encouraging rampant consumerism of goods shipped unnecessarily half way around the world, made at the cheapest price in nations that dont need to meet the environmental standards that our society has deemed appropriate for itself, out of sight and out of mind.

Originally Posted by Alan2005 (Post 9793011)

No. I said that legislation, taxation and the free market would fix the issue. You just focused on the free market bit and forgot the taxes and laws.

Originally Posted by iaink (Post 9793019)

We already have taxes and laws.

Originally Posted by iaink (Post 9793019)

The problem as ever is going to be to get all these countries to agree to common taxes and laws, or at least ones with a common purpose.

Originally Posted by Jingsamichty (Post 9792895)

Atmospheric chemistry, you say... hmmm. Perhaps he can provide the answer to a question that has long puzzled me: Why do farts smell so much richer in the shower?

It's not just the enclosed space, because when the shower is on the effect is noticeably more pronounced. I've spent countless hours on (personal) empirical data-collection, you know, comparing the enhanced odiferousness and intensity compared to a control fart laid mere moments before outside the shower.

Fascinating stuff, this science, you know. I'm not surprised someone would want to take it up as a career.

Originally Posted by laser558 (Post 9792147)

As I say, I am not qualified to comment and maybe neither is George Carlin but I find his stance quite interesting. The fact, for example, that the world has been around for a lot longer than us and although we might have been on the world for the past 200,000 years, we have only been involved in heavy industry for the past 200 or so and is it therefore possible for man-made damage to have been done in these last 200 years. My uneducated opinion is that the earth is cyclical and constantly warms and cools and perhaps too much weight has been put on man-made global warming and not enough on the natural course of events. I feel that this might have been influenced politically, if that is the case, it is wrong. Now, at the same time, as an individual, I am all for re-cycling and re-using where possible and the idea of re-usable energy resources is very appealing but this is not because I am necessarily and advocate to the idea of man-made global warming, I simply think it is a good thing to do. For all I know, you might be a qualified scientist and can counter everything I say with some scientific fact but I just find it odd that for millions of years, the earth has been spewing so much into the atmosphere through volcanoes and fires (I mean, let's face it, people have been making fires for cooking and heating nearly as long as they have lived on the planet), that to say we might have permanently damaged the world through thoughtless industry simply over the past 200 years, just doesn't ring true to me. But then, I am so very humble.

Originally Posted by Novocastrian (Post 9793202)

Sorry for the late response, but I've been slaving over a hot optical table all day fixing one of these. http://www.crystalaser.com/CL555-561.pdf

Originally Posted by Alan2005 (Post 9793053)

Does this mean we can't have new ones or amend the ones we have.


Yes, it's impossible to get all countries to agree and there is no point even trying. Countries can only really act unilaterally. Will they? Of course not while the populace wants $20 dvd players - but that's the only possible way of achieving anything short of some kind of totalitarian world government.

Originally Posted by London Mike (Post 9793518)

Agree with this. However, suspect we need to start thinking about this global meltdown in the way some others have been proposing in relation to the financial one. Bottom line is, for both to be prevented some form of multilateral agreement involving regulatory powers and green taxes (and penalties - Canada should be charged to **** for missing Kyoto by 30%!) are going to be needed. Otherwise, countries like Canada will continue to act in self interest on economic grounds rather for the benefit of the ROW. Similarly, and in terms of trade, countries should be rewarded for positive moves on footprint, for example building carbon collect and storage facilities rather power stations (as China is doing at a frightening rate).

Originally Posted by Lord Vader (Post 9793913)

So who gets all this money in your proposal? Who decides what is done with it? Isn't this just the financing arm for a one world government? make up a bunch of laws are start fining nations? Christ, the EU can't even get it's crap together. You proposal would likely lead to another world war.

Originally Posted by London Mike (Post 9794018)

Don't be ridiculous. In the same way as the Gates financial transaction tax (which I support), I think there should be some form of tax on trade regarding products with high carbon footprint. Oil, gas etc. Yes, many nations affected but if the IMF get the dish then countries making positive steps forward can/should get tax credits form the IMF.

We're all in this together. The world has to be creative here.

Originally Posted by Lord Vader (Post 9794048)

I agree with the part about being creative, which to me involves technologies, not a tax scheme that will serve no purpose in actual c02 reduction, it will simply spread it around.

Originally Posted by Former Lancastrian (Post 9793983)

To Alan2005
Im being serious in this thread. I note you are interested in this thread and I am asking did you read over the link I posted in #35 of this thread.
You have mentioned legislation several times I wonder what your comments on that link are from Canadas perspective????

It also might surprise you that CBSA officers do their little part in trying to enforce some of these laws specifically at Marine ports where literally hundreds of containers a day containing hazardous materials are being shipped to countries who have less than stellar ideas in dealing with such waste.

Originally Posted by Lord Vader (Post 9786990)

Yeah, lets scrap the oil sands and start shipping more of it in to North America from Saudi Arabia who today decapitated a women for practicing witch craft, or maybe comrade Chavez in Venezuela, or perhaps we can make arrangements with the enlightened government of Iran, or perhaps some of the prince's of the Arabian peninsula, or maybe the Nigerians and Angolans will be kind enough. Or maybe we can build an underwater pipeline from Russia, similar to the land based natural gas pipelines from Russia to Europe, or maybe the Brits and Norwegians will send us some from the north sea, I hear that deep water drilling is a nice, clean, environmentally safe way to extract oil, BP seems to think so. Whatever the result, we should not be producing it ourselves cause it is dirty and unethical and will destroy the planet.

Originally Posted by Lord Vader (Post 9809353)

ol nutface right on que. http://img846.imageshack.us/img846/6197/nutface.jpg

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2...uz-strait.html