Pollution not Climate Change is the Problem

(created by sitehelper from content by eauclaire)

Summary

• There is cause for skepticism of global warming theory, global temperatures may not be increasing and climate change may not be human-driven.
• Regardless of global climate, environmentally and socially harmful pollution must be reduced, the focus must be on total emissions, not solely on CO2.
• Clean Coal technology should be advanced to acheive emission free power from coal.
• Canada should not participate in Carbon Trading or otherwise taxing CO2.
  • Carbon trading serves mainly to inflate consumer prices.
  • Any trading scheme will be driven by self interested regional interests (example: Hydro Power focused Quebec selling credits to Alberta)

Answers to Key Questions

In light of the fact that the world's temperatures have either shown no warming or cooled during the last decade (which circumstance was not predicted by the climate models), a complete review of the science and climate models should be undertaken before any policy decisions are undertaken based upon the assumption of global warming.

Where is the reference for this? The data do not support the above! see http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cfm#GlobalTemperature The attached graph does however, show no warming over the last ten years. The previous (and obvious) warming has at least temporarily plateaued.

How closely should Canada’s policies be linked to the US?

We should discuss policy with the US and when in mutual agreement adopt appropriate policies.

Climate change needs to be addressed at the regional level, as carbon emissions take no notice of sovereign borders. We need to regulate our behaviour through legislation that equally takes consideration for energy producers and energy consumers. Participation in a North American cap and trade system may attempt to level the playing field, as its holds us accountable as a region for carbon emissions; or it may not, depending on the value placed on carbon and the complexity of creating an entirely new green marketplace. A universal revenue-neutral carbon tax can be effective but only on a large-scale, and the political implications are large; most politicians don't want to be associated with increasing taxes to consumers, regardless of it being revenue neutral. Also, administering two separate carbon taxes in Canada and US would be challenging due to the differing tax structures in each nation.

Should our focus be bilateral or multilateral?

What position should Canada adopt at the Copenhagen conference?

How does the economic crisis impact actions on climate change?

How will this impact Canadian industry?

How many green jobs can Canada create?

The possibilities are endless as we look to renewable energy technologies, and creating a cap and trade system, where carbon offsets are traded in a new market economy.
Canada needs the legislation and government support to foster strong P3 investment in emerging technologies and stimulate job grown in the green sector.

What added responsibility does Canada have as an energy superpower?

Proposal Details

First of all - all your "experts" subscribe to the same view ie Humans are causing climate change. Where is the balance?
Suzuki is a expert in genetics - not climate at all.
At least Morton talks about "clean" - this is good; we need to do all we can to have clean air, soil and water. Sadly, too many people confuse pollution with climate change.
This view is being seriously challenged by thousands of climate scientists. They do not disagree that the planet maybe warming - but most Canadians maybe realizing that in Canada temperatures are cooling - as they have since 2002! (even though there has been a significant increase in CO2 emissions during this time). Many climate scientists believe human activity has NOTHING to do with climate change. Witness the huge meeting in NYC in March 2009 when hundreds of climate scientists met to try to counter the lack of balance in discussing climate change as well as discuss what might actually be causing climate change on this planet - as well as Pluto and Jupiter.

How have we got to this position where politicians are seriously talking about carbon taxes, alternative energy, etc etc
1. Computer modelling made it seem that there was proof. Actually the "hockey stick" theory has been totally debunked. We all know computer data can be manipulated by what is left out as much as what is put in.
2. Massive propaganda such as An Inconvenient Truth which actually turns out to be a number of lies & many exaggerations as it artfully instills fear about the oceans rising 6ft by 2050 (even the UNIPCC doesn't agree with that). NGOs such as the Pembina Institute, the Sierra Club and Suzuki Foundation get huge amounts of publicity with no counter discussion - all preaching the same catastrophe model.
3. The UNIPCC - many of this body's scientists have quite in frustration. This is a POLITICAL organisation coming to conclusions by consensus - hardly scientific method - and yet they are deemed the "last word" ; all science is open to testing and challenge!

All this doesn't mean there are issues - not least of all that our addiction to oil funds some regimes that are very unfriendly. We don't yet have the technologies to produce and manufacture without also producing some nasty pollutants eg SO2

What should we do? let's get coal fired electricty plants in production with zero emissions - we are 95% there; lets get it to 100%

Let's NOT HAVE ANY CARBON trading. This only leads to some jurisdictiosn pushing hard for unsound policy because it could benefit it e.g. Maybe Quebec with it's huge hydro electricity thinks a carbon trading system would benefit their province because they could get Alberta to buy emission credits?????
The other silly thing about carbon trading is that is actually does not necessarily reduce carbon emissions - just makes all those products - oil based, gas based etc more expensive for you and me. Then look at who make the money. some systems make huge profits from carbon trades. It's no accident that Al Gore was invited onto the board of Lehman bros. who could see huge potential profits!

A lot of people will not like these inconvenient truths but at least they are not fiction!