Joe Carter crunches the carbon footprint numbers on Al Gore’s globe-trotting global warming concert tour;
* The concert will produce more CO2 in one day than Zimbabwe produced in any month in 2003.
* The concert will produce more CO2 in one day than the total daily fossil fuel emissions for Austria, Chile, Finland, Greece, Iraq, Kuwait, New Zealand, Philippines, Portugal, Sweden, the Virgin Islands, and a dozen other countries combined.
* The concert will produce more CO2 in one day than the entire nation of Afghanistan produces in a year.
Upon reviewing the calculations, however, it’s important to note that one important variable has not been included. With the Gore Effect factored in, one can anticipate at least half of the planned events will be cancelled due to cold.
One can only hope!
Right from the Live Earth web site.
>>>All Live Earth venues will be designed and constructed by a groundbreaking team of sustainability engineers and advisors directed by John Picard. This greening team will address the environmental and energy management concerns of each concert site, as well as the operations of sponsors, partners, and other Live Earth affiliates.
Each venue will not only be designed to maintain a minimum environmental impact, but will showcase the latest state-of-the-art energy efficiency, on-site power generation, and sustainable facilities management practices.http://www.liveearth.org/who_we_are.html
http://www.rojo.com/story/29LmJJ8vzZUrBcq7_New_Details_Live_Earth_To_Be_100_Carbon_Neutral_Make_Power_From_Garbage
Besides, one glace at this clown’s numbers tells you his number are ridiculously over inflated.
From the Live Earth website:
In partnership with the U.S. Green Building Commission, SOS – The Campaign for a Climate Crisis will implement a new Green Event Standard with Live Earth that we hope will become the model for carbon neutral concerts and other live entertainment events in the future, as well as anticipate the opportunity to develop this standard into a LEED-approved certification process for entertainment venues.
John Picard, the award-winning sustainability expert and former member of President Clinton’s Green White House task force, is leading the SOS team of sustainability expert. By embedding a team of world-class sustainability experts within the production staff, waste streams will be designed out prior to its negative environmental impact. From power generation at the concerts to garbage generated by concert goers, Live Earth will bestow an eco-friendly legacy on the live entertainment industry.
Among the steps being taken are:
– All electricity that powers the shows will be from renewable sources, either through utility supplied renewable energy, biodiesel generators, or renewable energy credits
– Concessionaires will be encouraged to use and directed to suppliers of agricultural / biodegradable plastics (i.e. made from corn). Also, concessionaire waste will be minimized through a comprehensive recycling system organized at the venue.
– Venue offices, walkways, etc will be retrofitted with compact fluorescent (CFL) light bulbs, where possible.
– The entire production design will follow sustainable light design principles. Production lighting will include the use of LED light bulbs and production/artist trailers will be incorporate low impact technology in areas such as air conditioning units.
– SOS staff and artist air travel will be offset through carbon credits.
-Ground travel will be hybrid or other clean fuel where possible.
– Hotels will be directed to change light bulbs to CFLs, use nontoxic cleaning products, and have recycling containers present in the rooms.
There is also the issue of Joe Carter’s generous assumptions about actual energy use, like the number of TVs per person, and inaccurate comparisons to country emissions data.
Well the man uses bizarro logic to produce his figures. Presumably if this event weren’t happening millions of people would be sitting at home in the dark with all their appliances off just waiting for the event to end before turning them back on again. Ya right.
Whoops, sorry albatros39a. Looks like you beat me to it.
Any bets on whether posting this info will have any effect whatsoever on SDA readers’ desire to bash Gore?
Well even Frank Zappa and Dee Schnider knew the Gores as a major source of foul hot air.
I wonder if the Green messiah has sold off his interests in Occidental petroleum yet?
Read the link.
And the carbon neutral crap doesn’t impress me any more than it does when Suzuki uses it to rationalize his own jet setting.
If these guys truly believe the mantra they’re preaching, they would be holding these world wide ego trips to a carbon negative target.
After all, according to Gore, if mankind doesn’t drastically reduce its emissions, mankind is doomed.
Its why the provision to exempt developing nations like China and India from reducing Co2 emissions reveals the big lie being foisted on us by the these attention seeking snake oil salesmen.
Pick and choose your villians. Rich pay, poor pollute. Some planetary crisis.
“Any bets on whether posting this info will have any effect whatsoever on SDA readers’ desire to bash Gore?”
Hey who let the fruit flys in here? 😉
Sorry “A” it won’t make one lick of difference to them.
Good work though.
Kate is a demagogue, but a harmless one.
It is presumably her job to torque headlines so that her fan club – rejects from the Jerry Springer show – can have something to liven up their days.
Comparing GHG emissions from Afghanistan and Zimbabwe!! I mean come on people.
Once the music has stopped and the crowds have gone home. After the mess is cleaned up and all the bills paid. When all the satisfied concert goers have had their egos stroked and their collective consciences put at ease!
You are encouraged to take stock of what exactly will have been accomplished!
My bet is that aside from the ego stroking ans temporary ease of conscience that answer will be Nothing!
That and a huge waste of energy and resources..whether renewable or not!
Kate is a demagogue, but a harmless one.
It is presumably her job to torque headlines so that her fan club – rejects from the Jerry Springer show – can have something to liven up their days.
Comparing GHG emissions from Afghanistan and Zimbabwe!! I mean come on people.
“Comparing GHG emissions from Afghanistan and Zimbabwe!! I mean come on people.”
That’s convincing scientific evidence. You sure must watch the Jerry Springer show enough to know. BTW, did you know he (Springer) is one of your fellow leftist moonbats?
I see the usual crowd suffering from the untreatable “Leftist Mental Disorder” have been let out on a day pass from the asylum.
I see the usual crowd suffering from the untreatable “Leftist Mental Disorder” have been let out on a day pass from the asylum.
Anon,
These are all legitimate comments. If someone sets themselves up as a high priest they better be able to live the moral life that they are demanding of others. True for TV evangalists and it is true for Mr Gore and Dr Suzuki.
Is there something wrong with demanding an accounting of the total carbon neutrality of the event? This is what is being demanded of industry, all the way through the chain to the end consumer, just liek the GST.
Or are we going to justify it as awareness building and therefore strategic and therefore not requiring the same rigour as other projects.
Is there suspicion of Gore…sure…the damn science isnt that clearcut, at least not what they are saying….Recognize when you are being SOLD something. It may be good for you it may not but recognize that you are being sold something and get past the hype.
This is a wonderful marketing campaign….lets see if it is sustainable….I have my doubts. I am open to action if they can prove it. But as it stands today NOT ONE preiction has come true or been accurate. The models are off by orders of magnitude and are often incorrect in direction. You couldnt land a man on the moon with this kind of imprecision. I would fire a contractor fixing my bathroom if they were off as much as these guys.
If the debate is over and the science is solif how come it is only 90%…which in statistical terms is really only a hunch. If you arent playing in the 95% confidence interval then dont even think about saying the debate is over.
I’m waiting for the excuses from the left that it is perfectly fine, indeed noble, to spew more than a small country’s emmissions in one day of rock concerts because they’re doing more for the earth than us dull normals.
I’m surprised that Kyoto-istas they have yet to tell us to collectively hold our breaths, not to see what happens, but because if we all breathe less, all six billion of us, that will cause a massive reduction in CO2 emmissions.
The hypocracy of the left knows no limits.
Since the Pablo Rodriguez enforce Kyoto Bill will soon be law, I would think it should be part of the Canadian enforcement plan to BAN any of these concerts planned for Canada and blame it all on DION
Way cool 🙂
I think it was Michael Campbell (Premier Gordon Campbell’s bro) on CKNW on the weekend who questioned the devotion to the environment of the multi-millionaire high-living musicians who each own a few 10,000+ square foot homes and the biggest, fanciest, “pimped-out” cars. He found the whole idea quite absurd and laughable.
A little OT; saw Michael Chricton on Charlie Rose last night. He gentled pushed Charlie into a corner and staunchly caleed the UN bureaucrats, well, bureaaucrats NOT scientists. See the interview at:
http://www.charlierose.com/
Suffice it to say that he called himself a “non catastrophist.”
Charlie tried and tried again to bring up the “marjority of scientists” support IPCC but Mr. Chricton was having none of it.
Kate: If these guys truly believe the mantra they’re preaching, they would be holding these world wide ego trips to a carbon negative target. After all, according to Gore, if mankind doesn’t drastically reduce its emissions, mankind is doomed.
Yes, going carbon negative is the eventual goal, but taking Live Earth–or any other initiative or group, for that matter–to task for achieving carbon neutrality (already an impressive, and rare, feat) because it’s not good enough is downright petty. It’s like a parent chiding their kid for only getting an A but not an A+ on a test.
soccermom hit the nail right on the head…do as I say, not as I do….After my tour in the army, I did eight years as a lineman for a utility…the taj mahals these leftard’s were building out in the boonies were amazing….razing 4, 6 up to 10 acres of pristine bush, falling 10, 15, 20 trees just to provide the poles to give them power and phone…generators spewing fumes to power the tools to build these monstrosities…and the displaced wildlife alone….moonbat/leftard hypocrites!
From the postings by A and Albatross39a:
All electricity that powers the shows will be from renewable sources, either through UTILITY SUPPLIED RENEWABLE ENERGY, biodiesel generators, or RENEWABLE ENERGY CREDITS
– Concessionaires will be ENCOURAGED to use and directed to suppliers of agricultural / biodegradable plastics (i.e. made from corn). Also, concessionaire waste will be minimized through a comprehensive recycling system organized at the venue.
– Venue offices, walkways, etc will be RETROFITTED with compact fluorescent (CFL) light bulbs, WHERE POSSIBLE.
– The entire production design will follow sustainable light design principles. Production lighting will include the use of LED light bulbs and production/artist trailers will be incorporate low impact technology in areas such as air conditioning units.
– SOS staff and artist air travel will be offset through CARBON CREDITS.
-Ground travel will be hybrid or other clean fuel WHERE POSSIBLE.
– Hotels will be directed to CHANGE LIGHT BULBS to CFLs, use nontoxic cleaning products, and have recycling containers present in the rooms
Notice the weasel words “where possible”. Notice also that they will be addressing their CO2 production primarily by “carbon credits”. Also, the hotels and venues will remove and (likely) dispose of otherwise working light bulbs (ie. generate waste) to install flourescent bulbs. And “utility-supplied renewable energy” just means that they will plug into the electricty distribution system just like everybody else, but claim that since a portion of the supply (which all gets “mixed together” in the electron stream, if you’ll permit this analogy) is renewable, THAT’S the part that THEY’RE using.
Therefore, “where possible” (which will not likely be very often) they will pay sin money to atone for their pollution and otherwise hide behind bogus claims. The CO2 “pollution” will still be generated and will still contribute to the purported AGW problem, but they’ll just feel better about it.
You seem to be pretty astute, A (unlike your fellow poster)…carbon credits don’t actually reduce CO2 “pollution”…they just make people feel better about the “pollution” that they generate.
Did you know that I do pretty much those same things “where possible” except for paying carbon credits? So, I’m actually a “climate change hero”, it would seem.
forgot one other thing…I guess driving a diesel volvo make’s one greener than one who drives a chev or ford…because the retarded idiots drive every day from their little palaces in the country, and that is ok, because they recycle????count pop bottles????sort newspaper????friggin moonbat hippie retards!
I see the fruit flys offer nothing but ad homenim insults rather than any real evidence that claims of “carbon neutrailty” or carbon output are anything but bogus marketing schills one way or the other.
Name calling is so much eaisier than coping with facts.
I challenge any of you carbon fruit flys to produce empirical columnized peer reviwed figures that prove such a enterprize is “carbon Neutral”…until you can, your “carbon neutral” love ins are just so much ideological mastrubating over utopian BS.
Please keep that messy execise to yourselves.
Yes, going carbon negative is the eventual goal, but taking Live Earth–or any other initiative or group, for that matter–to task for achieving carbon neutrality (already an impressive, and rare, feat) because it’s not good enough is downright petty.
Its already carbon positive due to moonbat heavy breathing at the prospect of another feel-good event.
Kate, I’m surprised you didn’t pick up on the major boners in Joe’s blog post. I’ll paste in a copy of my e-mail to him. While I agree with his thesis that these concerts constitute a hypocritical CO2 fart into the atmosphere, he needs to correct a few errors.
“Hello Joe,
I read your post regarding AlGore’s proposed SOS concerts from the link on Small Dead Animals. While I generally support your position, you have a BIG problem. Let me quote:
“Then there are those who will watch it at home on a TV or computer, both of which use about 200 watts of energy per hour. Let’s also assume that everyone is a conservationist and watches only one hour of the 24 hour concert. This would reduce the amount of energy used to 400 billion watts of energy (2 billion people using a 200 watt source for one hour).
In order to convert kilowatts of electricity (400,000,000 kw) to kilograms of carbon dioxide we multiply by .43, which gives us 172,000 metric tons of carbon produced simply by the viewing of this concert. Add that to the concert goers and you have roughly 200,000 metric tons of CO2 produced by this event.”
You are speaking of watts as a unit of energy. Absolutely WRONG. The phrase “200 watts of energy per hour” makes no sense at all from a scientific or engineering standpoint. A Watt is the term used to denote a unit of electrical POWER, and power is the RATE of consumption (or production) of electrical energy. In the context of electrical energy, the unit term for actual energy is watt-hour (that’s watts multiplied by the hours of consumption). Because a watt-hour turns out to be a fairly small amount of energy, we usually deal with kilowatt-hours in the real world. My last power bill indicated consumption of 750 kWh, as an example.
If 2 billion people watched the SOS concert for one hour, each using a TV rated at 200 watts consumption, the total energy consumed would be:
0.2kW x 1.0 hr x 2,000,000,000 = 400, 000,000 kWh. You did the sum right, but made a major boo-boo with the units. You also need to cite sources for the average wattage of TV/PC; I believe you are in the ballpark, but a cite is needed for scholarly rigor. You also need a cite to support the 0.43 kg CO2/kWh conversion factor, rather than just pull it out of a hat. Is that the carbon burden of coal-fired electric generation, gas-fired electric generation, diesel-electric generation, or is it the average carbon burden of all sources currently supplying the grid? That figure HAS to be referenced to be meaningful.
I follow a couple of alternative-energy newsgroups, and the confusion between kW and kWh is very common, and the ludicrous construction kW/hr is often seen, too. But the people always get called on it, and so should you. I urge to fix up your blog post, which could be worthwhile with the errors corrected.
Sincerely,
gordinkneehill”
Stephen writes: These are all legitimate comments…Is there something wrong with demanding an accounting of the total carbon neutrality of the event? This is what is being demanded of industry, all the way through the chain to the end consumer, just liek the GST. Or are we going to justify it as awareness building and therefore strategic and therefore not requiring the same rigour as other projects.
I direct you to albatros39a’s (10:43 AM) and my (10:53 AM) comments, above. The Live Earth concerts are striving to be carbon neutral events, achieved through a combination of renewable energy use, low-energy technologies, biodegradable and/or sustainable equipment, and carbon credits.
Achieving carbon neutrality is no easy task. A full implementation of Kyoto, by comparison, would only reduce emissions to 6% below 1990 levels, but this would still be net carbon positive. Seen this way, Live Earth is holding itself to a standard that is far more rigorous, not less, than what is being called for within mainstream circles.
But as it stands today NOT ONE preiction has come true or been accurate.
Not so. It’s true that the models are imprecise in a number of areas, particularly when trying to predict regional and micro-geographic trends, but they’ve been quite good over the past decade or two at predicting other global warming phenomena, such as temp changes, CO2 levels, etc. A forthcoming study in Science (google “Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections” in quotations marks) compares observations to predictions, and will likely be useful reading when the full article is published.
If the debate is over and the science is solif how come it is only 90%…which in statistical terms is really only a hunch. If you arent playing in the 95% confidence interval then dont even think about saying the debate is over.
I agree that the debate isn’t over, nor should it be, but I submit that’s also true that some action is required even in the face of continued uncertainty, given that what we’re talking about is the long-term health of the planet. Also, you’re confusing probability statistics (significance, 95% CI, etc.) with degree of consensus on AGW.
Unbelievable.
That anyone would reduce the core point being made here to a dissection of the minutia validates my premise – these people do not believe their own scaremongering. And neither do any of you who defend them.
The only acceptable carbon neutral solution to this question is cancel the concerts. Period.
In my view, on the two cents worth of ground where I stand ,I can’t see democracy working without challenging didactic pomposity . That this sometimes degenerates into ad hominen attacks is regrettable.IMO this often comes from the sheer frustration in trying to tell someone,(or inability to tell someone),that it’s not all about you.
I know a physician who went to university with David Suzuki , he said he was a very “I” person. I am married to a scientist, my wife told me that in her training she was instructed to get rid of the “I” in her papers.
RE: The Gore Effect…
I am a little disappointed./s
I thought the disruption of traffic and general chaos brought on by blizzards and/or ice storms was to be forevermore known as The Algore Effect.
Fingers crossed for a big blowout blizzard and Gore Effect in TO on March 23-24.
Eeyore: Notice the weasel words…THAT’S the part that THEY’RE using.
You’re absolutely right about the “where possible” line, except that if you assume they actually do use hybrid transport in every instance where it’s possible, then by definition, they’ve done the very best they can. Or do you expect them to use hybrid cars not only “where possible,” but also “where impossible”? As for whether they actually live up to their promise, I suspect they have a greater incentive to really go whole-hog on the “where possible”, so that they can say they did, rather than cut corners now to save money but then leave themselves open to criticisms later on. They may fall short of the ideal in practise, but don’t we all?
You’re right about the forced removal of old lightbulbs. A better strategy — not useful in this case — is to wait for the old ones to burn out, and then retrofit with CFLs.
Your description of how “utility-supplied renewable energy” is harnessed is not quite correct. It’s true that they tap into the existing grid, but the energy they use (and pay a premium for) is injected by green energy suppliers, which displaces energy supplied by traditional non-renewable source. For a better explanation, google “bullfrog power.”
carbon credits don’t actually reduce CO2 “pollution”…they just make people feel better about the “pollution” that they generate.
If credits are distributed correctly (not always the case), then yes, a carbon credit system can reduce CO2 emissions (and also make people feel better about the pollution they generate). In order for Live Earth to buy credits, some other company out there had to have reduced their emissions levels sufficiently to have a surplus of credits to sell. So the net effect is a reduction.
Did you know that I do pretty much those same things “where possible” except for paying carbon credits? So, I’m actually a “climate change hero”, it would seem.
Good for you, truly. Many (most?) people still don’t, though, which is why awareness-building events like these still happen.
At the end of the day, the Live Earth folks are just trying to get the environmental word out, and trying to do it in as sustainable a way as they can. Will it be imperfect? No doubt–they’re human, so error is a given. Are their motives honourable? I believe they are. Ego-stroking may be a part of it, but I think there’s also a shared and genuine concern about environmental health at play as well.
What does it say about the folks here who’d rather see a well-intentioned effort fail, just so they can say “I told you so”?
Let’s say, just for the sake of arguement, Suzuki and Gore were looking to save the planet from the ills of crack cocaine.
Using their example of “do as I say, not as I do” vis a vis “the messenger gets a free pass” these two idiots would be free basing while standing at the podium telling the rest of us to blame the junkies.
Kate: my premise–these people do not believe their own scaremongering. And neither do any of you who defend them. The only acceptable carbon neutral solution to this question is cancel the concerts. Period.
I wouldn’t characterize what they–and I–do as “scaremongering,” but yes, I absolutely believe that everyone (myself included) ought to reduce our impacts on the environment. Your premise assumes that any environmental advocacy initiative that requires energy input is self-contradictory, and that the only non-hypocritical course of action is to sit down and do nothing.
Which would be convenient for those who don’t like the message, but it’s also a bit like saying that you shouldn’t spend money to make money. Every activity requires energy input. Whether that activity is environmentally sustainable depends on whether its goals are worthy, and whether it tries to achieve them in a way that minimizes consumption and waste. Using the money analogy again, an outlay is sound if the end product is desired, and you get a good bargain for what you spend.
A, I was being sarcastic about the “climate change hero” bit. I don’t actually do anything at all to reduce CO2…but “where possible”, I do, if you know what I mean. At least for the record, you see.
That’s the point. This is just so much talk…the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.
Then, of course, there is the Law of Unintended Consequences where, trying to reduce the carbon footprint, they may actually do more harm in other aspects of their venture…a very minor example being the lightbulbs. Nothing may happen, but you are aware of the tortilla shortage in Mexico due to increased production of ethanol…who knows what may come out of their efforts?
Like Kate, I don’t put much weight on their carbon neutrality claims, although I will acknowledge their (mostly symbolic) attempt. I expect that Suzuki and Gore and all of the rock stars will all take a sailboat to the concerts or fly coach, right? Riiight!
“Awareness building”
The Leftist mantra for the past fifty years, which is an excuse to spend money with no noticeable benefits.
Besides, A, “well-intentioned” implies there is/will be a noticeable benefit from what they are doing. Which isn’t necessarily true.
Actually, it’s definitely false, as crippling the economies of the first world nations would benefit no one, except despots, criminals and thugs. Yes, I did just describe the U.N.
I’m totally against carbon trading (a made-up market selling nothing for prices that are based on nothing) but I’ll buy a few credits if it means you shut your computer down for a week and stop propogating your deceits and lies, Al.
Every activity requires energy input.
Heh, can’t have them walking to their love-in. All that huffing and puffing and expulsion of CO2…
Maybe ride a horse, their lungs are more efficient…
Shades of things to come, the offset to the increased energy used by the propaganda love-in depends on the reduction in use of energy by others.
These wackos get into power they’ll make it mandatory to reduce energy use to fund their propaganda.
Little cool here today. Think I’ll go start the pick-up and let it run….fire up the woodstove…light another cigarette…turn all the lights on…incandescent lights.
How much CO2 is AL GORE putting into the atmoshear while he is going all over the world? How many kilowatt hours of electricy are they going to use? How much HOT AIT is AL GORE putting out just by keeping his mouth flapping? How many trees will they cut down to print more copies of his phlonious book EARTH IN THE BALANCE? How many more trees will be cut down to provide the celulous for many more copies of his dumb movie A INCONVIENT TRUTH? When will AL GORE just shut his mouth and stop being sucha jerk?
the story from CBCpravda
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/02/20/tech-bulb.html
the truth for anyone that has ever bought one of these world saving devices
http://www.p2pays.org/mercury/lights.asp
http://members.misty.com/don/cf.html
Stephen please give CBCpravda “a nice big cup of shut the fk up ” before they kill us all with their simpleton logic.
Eeyore: I was being sarcastic about the “climate change hero” bit. I don’t actually do anything at all to reduce CO2
You’ve no idea how disappointed I am.
This is just so much talk…the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.
Fair enough. Of course, they’re merely advertising what they plan to do, while folks here are already poo-poo’ing them for failing to do what they, um, are planning to do…in the future. If the proof of the pudding is indeed in the eating, shouldn’t Joe Carter & your SDA crowd also be reserving criticisms until after the concerts take place?
…you are aware of the tortilla shortage in Mexico due to increased production of ethanol…
This is off-topic, but yes, I am. I’m also aware that ethanol is made from yellow corn, while tortillas in Mexico are made from white corn. The reasons for the shortage of white corn and the resulting price jump are complex, but they include the effects of NAFTA on small-scale white corn producers in Mexico during the early 90s; the subsequent consolidation of corn production by industrial agribusinesses; the displacement of (low-profit) white corn farming for domestic consumption with (high-profit) yellow corn farming for the export market; and the international indexing of white corn prices to yellow corn prices.
Sheesh.
You think you are sick of Britney and Anna Nicole Smith?
Well Al Gore is now the king of the freakin world. He is everywhere all at once.
A full court blitz is on for our tax money AND for the next elections in Briton, Canada, Australia and the USA by the climate change left.
They are massivesly funded by various ‘foundations’ and interests and they have no election laws they have to follow.
Why would anyone want to be President of the USA when they can be king of the world?
It does seem Hollywood & Hollywood North do not need Washington or Ottawa. They rule.
Fingers crossed for a huge Gore Effect blizzard in TO March 23.
http://www.canadastop100.com/conference
Does anyone notice the lefties dont mention the sun in all this?
Oh yeah that would kick the crap out of all there BS.
Kate:
one can anticipate at least half of the planned events will be cancelled due to cold.
Gee he really does have problems with Mother Nature. Maybe God is trying to tell him something lol (O:} Too funny & true ta boot.
Rich pay, Poor polute.
Some planetary crisis.
Doesn’t that just say it all?
A, don’t be obtuse. The “off-topic” bit about the tortilla / ethanol was just another weak example of unintended consequences…the same type of unintended consequences that hit all dough-headed do-gooders who can’t see the end from the beginning.
Just like our well-meaning rock stars, geneticists and internet-creators we’re talking about.
A, don’t be obtuse. The “off-topic” bit about the tortilla / ethanol was just another weak example of unintended consequences…the same type of unintended consequences that hit all dough-headed do-gooders who can’t see the end from the beginning.
Yeah, I got that. My off-topic point was that you got it wrong about the source of those unintended consequences. You implied that it was “dough-headed do-gooders” — not so. As I explained above, the tortilla shortage isn’t so much the unintended consequence of the recent demand for bioethanol (as advocated for by environmentalists) as it is the unintended consequence of neoliberal trade policies established over a decade ago (as advocated for by free market economists).
ya can’t fool mother nature, she will do whatever whenever she the hell decides and there is nothing you or I can do about it. in reality climate controls us more than we can ever begin to control climate
Kate: You commented that Kyoto has a “provision to exempt developing nations like China and India from reducing Co2 emissions.”
Well, if that’s true, it’s only true in the strictly factual, which is to say limited, sense. Maurice Strong knows more about China than anybody else in China, and he said, in a lecture at the University of Ottawa in 2005: “I spend a great deal of my time these days in China, where environment, sustainable development and related health issues are now the subject of widespread public concern and priority action on the part of the government.”
I’m not saying, Kate, I’m just saying that that’s what he says. So who am I supposed to believe, a powerful, international man of vision and intrigue who is rewriting the world with his dreams, or some gal who comes from a farm in Saskatchewan?
I mean, come on.