Originally Posted by laser558

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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