David Suzuki, on the John Oakley show:
I’m not getting any money from my foundation. I’m getting my money, the foundation gets its money, from ordinary people. We don’t take government money, corporations have not been interested in funding us. We get it from ordinary Canadians across the country. 40,000 thousand of them and we get some foundations in both Canada and the United States. So that’s my agenda. We speak on behalf of the people that fund us.
(To hear the audio clip click here.)
Joseph C. Ben-Ami;
Corporations uninterested? Is it possible that the Great Suzuki has failed to attract a single corporate donation to his feel-good campaign to save the earth? Not one?
Actually, the David Suzuki Foundation’s annual report for 2005/2006 lists at least 52 corporate donors including: Bell Canada, Toyota, IBM, McGraw-Hill Ryerson, Microsoft, Scotia Capital, Warner Brothers, RBC, Canon and Bank of Montreal.
The David Suzuki Foundation also received donations from EnCana Corporation, a world leader in natural gas production and oil sands development, ATCO Gas, Alberta’s principle distributor of natural gas, and a number of pension funds including the OPG (Ontario Power Generation) Employees’ and Pensioners’ Charity Trust. OPG is one of the largest suppliers of electricity in the world operating 5 fossil fuel-burning generation plants and 3 nuclear plants… which begs the question – is Suzuki now pro-nuclear power?
If I were less generous I might be tempted to accuse Suzuki of hypocrisy for accepting donations from corporations that he must believe contribute significantly to the production of greenhouse gases, but that would miss the point entirely. The real issue is that, contrary to his clear assertion, the David Suzuki Foundation does receive funding from corporations.
Via Lisa at DMB.
Related: Steve Janke;
You might remember John Duffy from the last election. He was the Liberal mouthpiece who threatened CTV’s Mike Duffy off the air, then was chewed out by the Duffster on national television (see the video of that encounter). Robert Asselin was a colleague of John Duffy’s in StrategyCorp and formerly a special advisor to Paul Martin.
Robert Asselin was a lobbyist for BSEF throughout 2005.
John Duffy was a lobbyist for BSEF from 2004 until January 2007, just a few weeks ago.
What did these two Liberals do for the BSEF? They fought tooth and nail against the definition of bromines as toxic…
What else would you expect from these stinking hollywood type lieberals, no different than boinking a stewardess without a condom in a airplane bathroom, on your way to give a speech on aids and its transmission to a gullible audience. Because the cbc or hollywood made you a star still dosen’t make kookie suzuki or ralf finnes smart or credible.
What bugs me is the question of why are these companies funding someone whose main purpose in life is to put them out of business? It’s downright suicidal.
Do they honestly believe that by throwing a few shekels Suzuki’s way they are going to get a pass?
So where does your hard earned money go when you donate to Dr. Suzuki…..well 34% goes to fundraising and administration.
That is GOLD!!! That’s GOT to get out to the media!! Who will then sit on it . . .
Arent we missing the point here. ISnt the point that receiving money from Corporations DOESN’T mean you are in their pocket. Doesn’t it mean that corporations can fund research and foundations WITHOUT strings attached.
As to why they would do it…they have their own PR objectives to meet and funding these causes helps their image.
Clearly only one opinion is allowed to be free from corruption, any other opinion is clearly corrupted and dirty.
Rhetoric all….lets just stick to the science, the data and the evidence, regardless of its source and figure out whether we are in a CO2 pickle or not, because it simply isnt clear.
And the good Dr. of Biology and genetics isn’t helping matters by being a closed minded shill for one viewpoint.
David Suzuki is a crack-pot with some of the most crazy and insane ideas ever he is as wacky as AL GORE and that JAMES LOVELOCK the wacky one who came up with this GAIA poppycock hypothisis
Dr. Suzuki, You comments regarding donations is is considered an outright lie. I know you will not discuss with MSM (they wouldnt even ask).
What percentage is 40,000 of the cdn population.
Maybe it’s time to put the same rules in place for corporations and individuals that are in place for donations to political parties, campaigns etc. Maximum amts to charitable groups. Listen to the cries.
Areas of Ont are experiencing a pre kyoto experience, as there is no gas in many stations, due to a shutdown of a refinery.
The head fruit fly has also taken money from “foundations” which are a slush fund of corporate, special interest and government money.
So Dr. Fruit Fly is being disingenuous when he says he does not take money from government…maybe not directly but certainly through money laundering “foundations” set up by the feds to fund their favorite lobbies who push the government in a direction their agenda wants to go….at the very least he’s getting a free pulpit at the CBC that his ratings don’t support.
I also have had suspicions that big oil would love funding the fruit fly because his meddling will result in reactionary market corrections which makes their product increase in value…( increased profits from less production) use less-charge more…all sanctified by urban green guilt exploited by the fruit fly evangelist and funded by your friendly petro baron.
I know the big oil funding of Gore is a fact with Occidental and Rockefeller’s standard oil “foundations” pushing millions into his evangelism.
Stephen is right here, “Arent we missing the point here. ISnt the point that receiving money from Corporations DOESN’T mean you are in their pocket. Doesn’t it mean that corporations can fund research and foundations WITHOUT strings attached.”
What people are doing when they concentrate on whose doing the funding is questioning the motivation. Motivation is irrelevant as to whether or not an argument is correct and in any debate it is the argument and the evidence that matters not who puts it forward.
People who concentrate on motivations are generally the ones who have weak arguments, that’s why they do it.
New species: drosophilia melanogaster mendax.
Stephen and FJ
What about the point of Suzuki’s credibility?
Furthermore, understanding motivation does not make for a weak argument.
“Areas of Ont are experiencing a pre kyoto experience, as there is no gas in many stations, due to a shutdown of a refinery.”
..Due to a fire at this refinery. Saw it on CFTO news last night…
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070220/nanticoke_fire_070220/20070220?hub=TorontoHome
As for Suzuki & the Liberals who lobbied for bromines: Bloody Hypocrites, all of ’em.
so the fruit fly guy has a co-website called “desmogblog” where he routinely refers people to go to to see how the “global warming deniers” are all funded by “big oil”, therefore making any of there observations or scientific measurements out of order. Its just a smear website.
Except when the same companies that fund him, it is somehow OK ??
Dr. Fruit Fly . . . the “Lie Guy”
Sweet . . .
Rob R,
I think one leads to the other. HE slams his opponents by saying that they are paid stooge. Well, he takes money from similar industries so he is forced to either back off his point, it is a stupid one anyway, or somehow claim he is an uncorruptable superman and all others are mere mortals.
Either way it hits his credibility….so I think we are in agreement. He either removes the point and discusses the science or not.
I am surprised he has been making the argument on motivation, I thought he was above that.
But…isn’t it OK to lie for the cause?
Glad to see my column is making the rounds in blogosphere.
I just wanted to write in response to Stephen and Farmer Joe that the issue of corporate funding is irrelevant in my view. I only raised it in response to Suzuki’s complaint that corporations are uninterested in providing his foundation with any financial support. That was clearly untrue, which ought to cause fair-minded Canadians to pause and consider his character and the credibility of his pronouncements on other issues. I also point out, for instance, that Suzuki was mistaken when he alleged that the IPCC Report released February 2 was signed by 2500 scientists. Actually, it was signed by only 51 individuals, not all of them scientists.
If I and others like me question David Suzuki’s motives, it isn’t because of where he gets his money, it’s because he’s dishonest.
Yes the problem is his credibility. As for accepting donations from these companies, I would think it shows generosity and consideration on their part. Whether you believe humans are wrecking the planet or not, there is no doubt that certain things are bad for the environment, and for oil companies to be funding alternative ideas is a very good thing.
I find it interesting, that its always the big bad oil company’s that are against global warming.
It seems to me oil companies and government alike would benefit the most.
1) You can rase the price of oil, “its global warming’s fault”
2) Government can spend money on hair brained schemes they can skim money from.
3) Produce less and charge more, with the added benefit of having your reserves last longer.
Joseph,
He is being dishonest, but the stick used to beat AGW skeptics is that the are corproate stooges. So there are two point
1) Yes he is not factual, intentionally or not, and that cuts to credibility
2) It also undercust the criticism, why can he take an energy company donation and not be corrupt but others can’t
The dishonesty is an important point, but it is a hard one to prove, as intentional or not. But THE FACT that he has received corporate donations and is not under pressure, ignorance of THE FACT doesnt change the implication, means that being corporately funded is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, irrelevant.
Dishonesty is hard to prove. Showing a point to be irrelevant and then raising questions about honesty or competence and governance is another.
All relevant points I just think I would rather call someone ignorant before I call them a liar. Undercuts their credibility in the long run…
It is great information and good for you for diggin it up. It works on many many levels
and wait for the feigned outrage from Cherniak on this one!I’m wondering why the Lib.mouthpiece is so quiet of late!! Could he have finally realized the bloom is off his beloved Celine??
What caused the fire, hope it has nothing to do with the recent threat against canadas oil and gas industry. Regardless, the refinery is closed for a while, and gas is scarce. One can see it does not take long for an event of any kind to have repercussions on the citizens of an area.
Borat Dion becomes Canadas biggest climate change derriere.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070219/counsel_poll_070219/20070220?hub=QPeriod
Stephen,
Suzuki is an icon in Canada and has contributed positively, by and large. But he needs to be held to account in the glare of the spotlight for not knowing who contributes to his foundation or claiming to be a “populist” when he clearly isn’t by at least a couple of measures.
Over the years, the CBC has given him a science monopoly and exposure that given him a comfortable existence. That has led to the prominent foundation enjoying broad support.
But there is a crowding out effect here. Surely canada has many gifted scientists, conservationists and environmentalists. But we never here from them and are spoon fed his “brand” to the point that when caught in a lie, for that is what it is, he needs to be held to account.
You can ‘splain the difference between lie and ignorance but that is pettifoggery. There isn’t anything wrong with knocking Suzuki for his damn pretentious attitude.
Stephen has the correct response.
When the AEI or individuals are accused of being corrupted by big oil because they receive money, we can then say: “So, Suzuki, we must ignore you too”.
So, we have the leftard enviro-cultist nut jobs dismissing any opposition to the Global Warming bible as “those bought and paid for by big oil” and the high priest of the Global Warming cult himself is funded by big oil.
Why am I not surprised at the hypocrisy. After all, it’s not out of the ordinary for televangelists to be caught banging a hooker or snorting coke (or snorting coke off a hooker… lol.) Suzuki is Global Warming’s head televangelist. He is peddling Jonestown’s Koolaid. Just like all the rest of the mentally ill cultist manson familiy losers.
Susuki is starting to feel the pressure…he bolted out of a radio sation interview when he was challenged by the host (National Newswatch)
When people speak of Kyoto and climate change it might be worthwhile to suggest they are talking about changing the climate, which is not that easy to do.
How much energy does it take to change the climate?
So where are all the leftist trolls in this thread like the other threads lately?
Could it be that they can’t deal with THE TRUTH?
Doug,
When a fact is presented to a lefty, they are rendered incapable of speech. Leftism is caused by a defective section of the brain which we refer to as the “logic zone” which is wholly missing or irreparably damaged.
The average leftard shares many commonalities with your average field potato including their inability to analyse simple numbers (or to count at all.) They share an inability to foresee the consequences of actions with long-term crack-whores and severe alcoholics who show similar signs of mental impairment.
12-step programs have been tried in an attempt to cure these unfortunate victims of leftism but progress has been impeded by Leftard’s inability to count past “more” which is the only number they know.
Come on now, Old David Suskooky would not tell a lie
would he?
Jeeze, it’s dumbfounding , who can we believe if we can’t believe the Fruit Fly Expert?
‘Scuse me while I get my toungue out of my cheek.
Could it be he’s consumed too much of the organics has addled his mind and he no longer has recall?
Excuse the spelling of “tongue”.
Rutherford just had a leftard from the pembina/ponoka institute on, and the very learned Claire, says like it’s so like easy for like big oil to like reduce their like emmissions with no cost like passed on the like end user. What leftard university produces these parasites. The cost of power has jumped 66% in parts of enlightened Europe because of their stupidity of following every leftard scheme including Kyoto. I remember the 2 mile long lineup of trucks hauling oilfield equipment at the Coutts crossing in 1982, I was in it. We were waiting clearance to take our very livlyhood out of Canada because of turdeaus NEP. You like Claire were like not even born yet. I for one will not sit back and see that ever happen again. Kyoto is just a bigger money transfer that the world has ever seen, transfered to the usual suspects of the lieberal leftoid party. Wake up Canada.
JRB,
Not debating you, certainly not defending the good Dr., I may not be last in line to do so but prety near the end of the line on that one.
You provided (unlikely). If he and his crew stop the corporate stooges acgood information that works on many levels. Whether he is held to account for it, responds to itt it would move the debate to more positive ground where science and evidence can be discussed.
Keep digging…that was good info.
Stephen: 2) It also undercust the criticism, why can he take an energy company donation and not be corrupt but others can’t
I’m not planning to defend Suzuki on this one. He clearly misspoke/lied about funding sources, though perhaps notably, all major funders (and approximate amounts) are disclosed publicly in the Foundation’s annual report.
I also think they shouldn’t be accepting donations from the energy sector at all, if for no reason than to avoid PR damage (like now).
Having said that, a major reason for the ongoing suspicion about corporate money & corruption is that the corporate world has a long history of manipulating public opinion for their own gain. They basically invented the PR industry. Big Tobacco straight-up lied about cigarettes and cancer; some of them still deny the link. Leaked memos illustrate rationally-made strategic decisions to withhold health/safety information from the gov’t and public because it might harm the bottom-line. A number of frontgroups have been exposed as being entirely funded and comprised of industry lobbyists (not scientists) posing as “grassroots” organizations in order to manipulate public opinions. Suspicion of CEOs and the corporate world isn’t just common among ‘left-wing’ activist types; following Enron, etc., it’s also widespread among the general public. There’s a reason for all that, and much of it is well-deserved.
Which explains why people care less when a group like the Suzuki Foundation accepts corporate money than when a group like the Friends of Science accepts corporate money. Suzuki accepts the money (A) but still criticizes the energy sector (B), so there’s not even a faint perception that A could’ve caused B. The FoS accepts the money (C) and says things about AGW that favour the energy sector (D), so they’re always the perceived possibility that C caused D. And since the public is already suspicious of corporate self-interest, it’s hard to shake loose that perceived possibility.
I’m not saying that anyone who touches corporate money necessarily loses all credibility, even when the individual’s views and the corporate donor’s views jive. But the public perception issue cannot simply be dismissed as irrelevant simply because it’s irrational, and is surely a huge caveat that any astute scientist, especially one skeptical of AGW but even someone like Suzuki, ought to weigh careful if they’re approached by an energy sector donor.
Doug: So where are all the leftist trolls in this thread like the other threads lately? Could it be that they can’t deal with THE TRUTH?
Actually, I was just having lunch.
“Having said that, a major reason for the ongoing suspicion about corporate money & corruption is that the corporate world has a long history of manipulating public opinion for their own gain.”
As opposed to the liberal party?
Dr.fruit fly was in Winnipeg last night spreading the gospel according to himself, & guess what—this morning Manitoba is hit with a blizzard! The Gore effect must be contagious. BTW I didn’t attend; had to wash my hair & do my nails.
*
I saw Saint David and his huge global warming campaign bus
on the Rick Mercer show last night. For the love of Gaia…
someone please tell me he’s running that bio-cidal behemoth
on recycled french-fry grease…
*
Why Dave Suzuki supports Toyota,
If you look on Dave’s site he mentions the Toyota company on 16 separate web pages.
http://www.altavista.com/web/results?itag=ody&pg=aq&aqmode=s&aqa=&aqp=&aqo=toyota&aqn=&aqb=&kgs=0&kls=1&dt=tmperiod&d2=0&dfr%5Bd%5D=1&dfr%5Bm%5D=1&dfr%5By%5D=1980&dto%5Bd%5D=21&dto%5Bm%5D=2&dto%5By%5D=2007&filetype=&rc=dmn&swd=www.davidsuzuki.org&lh=&nbq=10
And just who gives money to Mr Suzuki
Toyota.
Both Japanese too.
Beacuse if global warming is man made and caused by gas. Hybrids are good.
If it isn’t all that money Toyota spent on R & D could be lost.
Or could it be that he just has it in for Chrysler who made those Sherman tanks?
LOL, Buglady. “Gospel according to himself”, indeed. Does anybody else wonder how it came to pass that Suzuki is suddenly beyond reproach regarding AGW, a field clearly not within his scope of expertise?
Curious.
“Suzuki is an icon in Canada”
Actually, given his position and demeanor on AGW, I’d choose “false prophet” or “demagogue” over “icon”.
A.: fair point on PR industry & tobacco lobby. They were guilty of:
– misrepresenting data
– deflecting & manipulating public opinion for their own ends/schemes
– mis-stating or neglecting to include relevant facts that would damage their position
– discrediting research or other scientists who opposed their views.
Hey! Wonder who that sounds like…
mhb23re
[at gmail d0t calm]
Related piece:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/editorialsletters/story.html?id=55f4dc45-f308-4b34-80af-011a0cf38fed
I can see it now:
Suzuki lied; the economy died!
There’s no catastrophic climate change in the future caused by man. It’s a big lie.
If someone of Dr. Suzuki’s caliber can lie so easily about one thing, then lying about another is a walk in the park.
And if Dr. Suzuki can lie, so can 2,500 other “scientists”.
There we have it: one of the chief proponents, Canada’s alleged top scientist, has been caught in a lie and has been caught with a closed mind.
Scientists who have closed minds and who lie…
Imagine 2,500 of them.
What is their agenda? Their motive? Money? Or something sinister? Who knows? The whole thing is bizarre and insane anyway.
Only an idiot will believe that if we don’t shut down civilization, the world will end tomorrow, which is pretty much what these Chicken Littles are trying to make us think…
I, and others, have said it again and again.
To understand where all this Kyotoism came from, google Maurice Strong. A Canadian from Oak Lake Manitoba, I beleive, he is also on the Suzuki board of Directors.
Strong’s mission in life ?? Destroy mankind’s way of life in order to save the world for .. for .. ??
Well Dr. Dave did say that those scientists who were opposing the Global Warming / Climate Change / GHG connection were categorically “In The Pocket” of Big Oil and Industry!
So, Suzuki can draw this conclusion from the fact of those who have a history of being paid for their valuable knowledge, insight or skills by one commercial enterprise or other, that those scientists have no credibility!
It is completely logical then to question Suzuki’s own connections. Completely fair and quite appropriate too.
Unless the Dr. is willing to retract his assertions and smears of this group of worthy science professionals then he really does deserve the very same treatment.
Another aspect of this is the revealing nature of Suzuki’s diatribes against his questioners and that baring of his disdain for legitimate interests of business that exposes his socialist ideological point of view. For David Suzuki it is all about the Ideology and has nothing to do with science or fact.
For Suzuki science is just a prop that allows him to posture in imaginary credibility. If you attack his scientific prop he swings wildly about with slanders, slurs and impossible assertions without EVER dealing with the substance of the challenges.
I think that this is proof enough of David Suzuki’s lack of credibility and clear evidence of his underlying character and motivation.
BTW – Has anyone else noticed how many of these tongue clucking, finger waging environmentalist scolds seem to be from Bio-Science backgounds?
Having failed to panic the populace through their incessant rantings about impending eco-disasters could it be that their new tactic is to bang that eco-drum for the sake of the attention it brings to them?
Lets face it. Nature IS out to kill us all and we have precious little to do about it. IN the end no amount of hand wringing or feeble attempts to implement global policies will have any effect.
Darwin’s theory and the law of survival of the fittest will rule in the end. Perhaps that’s what scares the weenies so badly!
Just a thought – How many times has Suzuki been offered work by industry for his expertise? I suspect a number approaching ZERO! Why would that be? I suspect because serious people know that he has NOTHING of value to offer.
It is well known, at least in the blogsphere, that Kyoto and it’s carbon-credit scheme is the biggest scam the world has ever seen. But how could this have gotten so far ??? Simple.
The Mainstream Media has become Tabloid-ised.
As bad as the Canadian Media may be, I wonder if the American Media is not worse.
While in Palm Springs CA, I became ill whenever I watched TV, — which was rarely.
Two of many such cases;
The Weather Channel TWC (Canada’s equivalent of The Weather Network TWN) was hyping the severe winter weather in the deep south. (in between GW alarmism) To show the calaminty of it all they showed a clip of a four-wheel-drive truck spinning and sliding backwards while it atempted to climb a slight incline. 4WD on the side, and the camera man and the interviewer made a point that not even SUVs can ‘make-it-through. What they did not mention was that only the REAR wheels were spinning. 4WD was not even engaged !!! Pathetic TABLOID-ISM !!!! Got to push that Gore/Suzuki calamity thing somehow !!!
Second case; For days all the TV carried was the Anna Nicole Smith death. Tradgic as it was, did it really warrant hour after hour coverage ?? But then, finally, on Fox, there were 3 quests. When asked of their opinion of TV coverage, two went ballistic. A middle-aged women thought it was soooo sad that Smith’s life had gone wrong. The second, a twenty-ish black man exclaimed that it was pathetic that big-boobs takes precedence over all the other very important news items of the day. And the third, a thirty-ism man held up a lap-top and protested that he gets all his news from the Internet. The media is junk.
Tabloid-ism of the Media has given the Kyoto hoax pushers, like Suzuki, air-time.
Why did the Media become so Tabloid-ised ???? IMO, because the New-Media, the Internet, has all the non-naieve customers. The editors had to go to the ‘easily-duped’ types, take over the Tabloid segment. Get yours at the check-out counter !!
B.Hoax Aware: too bad the media couldn’t put two and two together… re: Al Gore, Maurice Strong, UN, Earth Charter, Earth Summit, Suzuki, Paul Martin, Bob Rae, Chretien, Ehrlich (oh my, the list is endless) etc. etc…they could give the public a much better scare than this global warming crap.
On the matter of John Duffy et al:
Bromine, in pure diatomic molecular form, is indeed quite nasty stuff. There are also a number of compounds containing Bromine that are nasty too. But, there are also a number that aren’t very nasty at all. If I was in a chemical plant (I sometimes go to meetings at them) that had hazardous or toxic forms of Bromine or compounds containing it in its processes, I would certainly want it to be considered hazardous and toxic, for my safety and everyone downwind.
The trick with dangerous chemicals is to only use them where they are the best possible solution, all things considered. And when a compound containing Bromine meets that criteria, then it should be used. This is where proper risk analysis has to come in to play; overstating dangers is less than optimal in that case.
We saw this with CFCs, DDT, and asbestos. All were being used in cases that were not the best possible solution. Removing those uses solved all the major problems associated with limited continued use. But because of risk fear-mongering, we also removed them from a number of cases where they were the best possible solution.
Bromine is less active that Chlorine or Fluorine, but more active than Iodine. It may be that atmospheric Bromine concentrations have a strong effect on ozone. It may be that it has a much higher heat-trapping coefficient than CO2. But to use those values, you have to multiply them by the actual concentrations.
Water vapor is the greatest green-house gas because it occurs in very high concentration and produces significant heat-trapping. Human-produced CO2 runs in the neighbourhood of 25,000,000 kilo-tonnes per year. A quoted article above says the critical use exemption is for about 17 kilo-tonnes per year. So even with the heat-trapping coefficient included, even if we dissipated ten times as much, and even if all of the critical use of it got into the atmosphere, I don’t see how it could possibly be a major green-house gas.
So I think that an argument can be made for lobbying against Bromine alarmism. And reasonable people have one foot on each side of many issues. What alarms me about the behaviour of the supposedly safety and environmentally conscious miscreants in this case is that they were, as Steve put it, “Liberals enriching themselves by lobbying for people who don’t want the Liberals to do what they’ve promised”.
To me, that is unconscionable.
If the Liberal’s platform was to be reasonable on matters of the environment, then it would not be the case that we would have here “Liberals enriching themselves by lobbying for people who don’t want the Liberals to do what they’ve promised”, because they wouldn’t have promised to be unreasonable. But after the absurdity of bill C-288, we know that is not the case.
C-288 binds our Government to reducing Canada’s human-effected (HE) output of CO2, by 2012, to 6 % less than it was in 1990. Since 1990, Canada’s HE-CO2 output has increased some 30-odd percent, almost all of it under the watch of Liberal Governments, which means that C-288 now requires Canada’s Conservative Government to reduce our HE-CO2 output by about 38 % over five years, even though previous Liberal governments have achieved quite the opposite of any reduction during their dozen-odd years at the helm.
In yesterday’s National Post, columnist Don Martin noted that in order to meet the requirements of bill C-288, “Canada would have to shut down all the power generation in Canada. Twice over. Or, it would have to eliminate all gasoline-fueled cars and trucks. Three times over. It could shut down the manufacturing sector. Six times over.” This means that if Canada shuts down all its power generation, and all gasoline-fueled cars and trucks, and all manufacturing, then we can, just barely, meet the requirements of bill C-288.
Assume that whatever measures are necessary are taken to achieve the goal of reducing Canada’s output of HE-CO2 by 38 ± 2 %. The portion of global HE-CO2 output produced by Canada is 3 ± 1 %, so the reduction of global HE-CO2 achieved by Canada would be about 38 × 3 ÷ 100 or 1.14 %. The proportion of global CO2 that is human-effected is 3 ± 1 %, so the reduction in total global CO2 achieved by Canada would be about 1.14 × 3 ÷ 100 or 0.0342 %.
The portion of green-house gas effect produced by CO2 in relation to other green-house gases, such as water vapor, which exists in greater concentration than CO2 and has a greater heat-trapping capacity, is, let’s say, 10 %. I’m least sure about this estimate, so for the variability calculations below I’ll consider the margins to be from 1 % to 50 %, but as I understand it there is a large consideration in play here. The reduction, then, in global green- house gas effect achieved by Canada would be 0.0342 × 10 ÷ 100 or about 0.00342 %.
In other words, if Canada shuts down all its power generation, and all gasoline-fueled cars and trucks, and all manufacturing, then we can reduce the global green-house gas effect by about 34 millionths (999,966 millionths of it would still go on). Based on the possible variations of values I have indicated, this value could be as high as 300 millionths, or as low as 1.5 millionths.
But what if, you say, we are just doing our part, and if everyone does the same (ignoring for now the problems regarding China and India not being committed to any such behaviour), then the effect would be larger? Yes it would. The 3 % Canadian portion of HE-CO2 would go to 100 % across all humans. So, the maximum effect, if everybody reduced their HE-CO2 output by about 40 %, would be a reduction of global green-house gas effects from 1,000 thousandths to 992 thousandths.
Also, recall that the putative purpose of this exercise is to get rid of a projected temperature increase of a few degrees over the next century, and that under previous cases where the Earth was a few degrees warmer, it did just fine.
Now, hands up, how many Canadians think it’s a good idea for us to shut down all our power generation, and all our gasoline-fueled cars and trucks, and all our manufacturing, in order to reduce the global green-house gas effect (whatever it may be, good, bad, or neutral) from 1,000,000 millionths to (best case) 999,700 millionths, in five years?
So you can see, I hope, that bill C-288 shows that the Liberals are promising the absurd, while at the same time we have “Liberals enriching themselves by lobbying for people who don’t want the Liberals to do what they’ve promised”. We see the same kind of thing when Dr. Suzuki’s public anti-business grandstanding is exposed as hypocritical in light of the donors to his foundation. That’s why we can’t trust people like the Liberals, or anyone else who voted for C-288, on matters as important as the environment.
Here’s another example of the dangers of innumeracy, environmental or otherwise. In March, 2004, the Edmonton Champagne Socialists, Limousine Liberals, Mastercard Marxists, and Welfare Wankers Journal pandered to the innumerate by ululating about industry’s desire to use 330,000,000 liters of water a year from the Red Deer River. Sounds scary, right? After all, Alberta is a semi-arid region in the Rocky Mountain rain shadow. It really is not a good idea for us to piss away water, if you’ll pardon my being a bit droll.
The Red Deer river flow rate varies from 10 to 100 cubic meters per second. Assuming only 10 cubic meters per second, that’s still 10,000 liters per second. Which means that industry proposed using 33,000 seconds, or about 9 hours, or about 0.1 % of the river’s annual flow.
The question we have to ask ourselves is, why aren’t the extremists complaining about industry wanting to use 0.1 % of the river flow? Why do they say 330,000,000 liters instead? Are they trying to hide a fraudulent agenda behind big numbers?
We saw the same sort of problem with the long gun registry. People just don’t understand how much 2,000,000,000 dollars is, until you put it in terms of things like concentration of man-power: it’s 20,000 man years! I discussed this example at some length in my Mark Steyn’s Letter of the Week award winning essay available at tinyurl.com/ybnozb
This brings us back to the matter of atmospheric concentrations of various vapor-state fluids. Some people say, oh woe, oh woe, Canadians are producing 700 megatonnes of CO2 per annum. That’s a big number, right? Compared to what?
Do you remember when your science teachers tried to impress upon you that when photographing objects, you needed to put something of known size into the frame in order to be able to reconstruct the scale of the object? Why is it that issue extremists never provide you with a scale for their measures?
Given that we have already seen ice shelves in football fields … why not water usage in swimming pools? An Olympic size pool holds 2,500,000 liters of water. 330,000,000 litres is the same as 132 Olympic pools. Maybe the world isn’t going to end tomorrow after all.
I would like to add one more consideration, if I may. So far, above, I’ve only discussed the debit side of the ledger. Once we haul out the credit side, we find that Canadians have an awful lot of atmosphere to contribute to the denominator of global concentration values. If people are going to suggest trading credits for production of CO2, then shouldn’t the credits also be based on our ability to decrease concentrations by providing large volumes in which to disperse the moles? Canada’s really good at that, all by itself it owns about 7 % of Earth’s over-land atmosphere.
If I may provide a simplified example. Say A owns, solely on A’s property, a lake that contains 1 km³ of water. Say B owns a lake solely on B’s property that contains 10 km³ of water. Say we agree that we don’t want the concentration of Y in lakes to be greater than Z %. Is it not the case that B gets to put ten times as much Y into his lake as A, while still maintaining a concentration of no more than Z?