I Support the Northern Gateway Pipeline

I consider myself a progressive. I've given thousands to the NDP and
even threw a few strategic progressive dollars to the Bloc Québécois.

I also consider myself an environmentalist. Perhaps not enough to give
up my travel addiction (poverty has temporarily taken care of that),
but enough of one that I live in a downtown apartment and walk to
work.

People in Bangladesh are going to die because of global warming.

I'm writing this on an iPhone that was assembled just north of Hong
Kong in China. Parts of it were made in Taiwan and Korea. The energy
used to manufacture the iPhone was most likely derived from coal.
Ditto my computers, TV, Playbook, Kobo and iPad (did I mention I'm
poor?).

So we send Asia oil that is slightly better for the environment than
coal, they give us cool gadgets that reduce needless trips to the store
for shopping, driving around while lost, enable shortcuts, and
dramatically reduce my consumption of paper. Win, win.

More importantly, BC takes a slight environmental risk instead of
Moncton suffering the guaranteed pollution that would come from Irving
refining Alberta oil in St. John.

Moncton is where I live. Not BC. The people of Bangladesh and China
matter as much to me as the people of BC (on a per capita basis). They
are guaranteed to have millions of people die because of global
warming and coal generated air pollution. If it replaces coal, Alberta
oil would reduce both. Northern BC (where very, very few people live)
incurs a slight risk of having localised water and soil pollution. But
I live in Moncton.

The federal government has spoken. Time to move on. And if you live
anywhere near the proposed pipeline, you might want to move to
Vancouver, because as a rural Canadian, your carbon footprint is
amongst the largest in the world, and that's not cool.

Meteorite Landings Are Not Random

Here is my hypothesis: The location of meteorites crashes are not random. They are not spread out equally around the world. What do I base this on? The map.

Look at it!

View Larger Map

The Chelyabinsk region is like the surface of the moon! Perhaps there is a logical explanation: lazy map makers, beavers, Soviet engineering... But man, does it ever look like a bunch of meteorites crashed in to the region.

-What Do We Know about the Russian Meteor?
-Meteorite Hits Russia, Causing Panic (in case of WSJ paywall, Google the title)
-Videos of Russian Meteorite Captured by Bystanders

Global Warming is Going to Happen

I think it is clear that the vast majority of people are aware that global warming is real. The problem is most people aren't willing to do anything about it. Put a filter on plants, plant some trees. OK. Smaller house? Nope. Closer /fewer vacations? Nope. One car instead of two? Nope.

People are willing to pay more for organic or bio food, because they perceive a value, but they don't see a value in paying more to curb global warming.

Don't get me wrong, government global warming decisions can effect behaviour. It is now more expensive to fly via the UK because of the new global warming tax. So what do people do? Not fly to the UK, obviously. But also fly inefficient direct flights (on smaller planes) directly to their non-UK destination. Or decide to go to Asia instead, now that it is a similar price. And if they don't fly at all? Well, they are doing something with the money. Almost everything you buy contributes to global warming, including bio and organically grown food.

My previous musings on the subject of global warming:
-Canada should ban pets.
-Parking caused global warming
-Ban pets to combat global warming
-Stop Global Warming: Move to a Greem Metropolis
-Save the Plannet: Ban Puppies
-Planting a tree will not reduce global warming
-Fundamental Flaw in Liberal Carbon Tax Proposal

-Graham Bucks Not Quite Ralph Bucks ;

-Liberal Solution to Global Warming: Punish Parents ;

-Canada's Kyoto target: only buy stuf made in China ;

-Blame Rona Ambrose or You Could Take the Bus ;

-If I Ran Canada

-Time For a Capital Gains Tax On Homes

-Climate Change: local governments must pick up the slack, or else...

 

 

Accidents Happen: Where to improve safety

Drunk Driving Lindsay Lohan in jail

In your city, the intersection with the most accidents is probably,
per car, one of the safest. And that is a good thing, as it is
probably a useful intersection on the way to somewhere you want to be.
But if you are on city council and you are presented with engineering
recommendations to improve the intersection with the most accidents,
would you ignore the recommendations because, per car, the
intersection is already one of the safest?

Depending on the recommended work, it might be a cost effective way of
reducing the number of car accidents in your city. But is that fair?
Should some drivers encounter significantly less risk in order to
maximise the reduction of accidents? Or should the risk be spread out
as equally as possible, even if that way more cars are damaged and
more people injured.

You can apply this dilemma to food safety, healthcare, crime,
unemployment, economics, etc.

This keeps me up at night.

Update (2012-05-30): Here is an interesting bicycle accident report of 4 years of consolidated data. I say interesting because it is not. Accidents are remarkably spread out. They also go up in June. But if you read that data and conclude January is the safest month to drive your bike in Montreal, then you are a fool. 

Forget the Carbon Tax, give me your money!

You drive to work. I walk. You probably feel guilty because you are ruining the planet. Unlike All Gore, I actually am saving it. One footstep at a time. And if you give me $10 per year, I will continue to walk to work. Until I have enough to buy a car, of course.

By the way, I feel like I'm talking in the wind: PLANTING A TREE DOES NOT OFFSET CARBON EMISSIONS! When a tree dies, it will release 100% of the absorbed carbon back into the admospher (via fire or decomposition). 

Chinatown Walks to Work

Yes, I live in Moncton, New Brunswick, but my favourite newspapers are the New York Times and the Toronto Star. The online Tortonto Star has a cool Google Maps with transit use in the Greater Toronto Area by federal riding . Why federal riding? Presumably because it is the Toronto Star (although maybe it is Statcan's fault).

I compared that nifty/ubercool/I love the Internet map with the equally impressive use of GIS at the CBC . Unfortunately, I did not find any correlation between walking to work and voting for the NDP. However, clearly, the solution to Canada's carbon addiction is more Chinese people. 35% of Trinity-Spadina (Chinatown) walks and/or cycles to work . Olivia Chow should be proud. 

Spadina Bus - The Shuffle Demons

Planting a Tree Will Not Reduce Global Warming

If death is part of life, than 1 of the 10 things to do to reduce global warming (ironically, in pdf format so you can print it), from the Inconvenient Truth movie web site , is blatantly false.

"A single tree will absorb one ton of carbon dioxide over its lifetime". Um, no, sorry.

A young tree will absorb more carbon dioxide than it releases. As the tree gets older, it breaks about even. When it dies, it releases all the carbon via decomposition. If you use the wood to build a house or make furniture, you will get close to that one ton objective. If you let it die a natural death, you are totally screwed. That 1 ton will go back into the atmosphere. Sorry. Trees are not the answer.  

The solution to global warming is to use less fossil fuel. Period. Less coal, less oil. Than ain't easy. Try building a nuclear power plant, a dam or a wind farm without fossil fuel.

A young forest will certainly suck up some carbon, and when it matures, if you harvest the wood (clear cut please), you will have a net reduction in released carbon. You could also argue that heating with wood is also positive if it replaces the use of fossil fuels. As an added bonus, you will be reducing the life expectancy of the neighborhood children because of the respiratory diseases caused by the all the particle rich smoke you are releasing in a densely populated area, day after day, all winter long.

Al Gore's movie is quite convincing, and hopefully convinced many that global warming is a problem. Unfortunately, the artificial torch will have to be passed to others for the solution. First class globe trotting, mansion living, Nobel Peace prize winning, and perhaps tree planting, Al Gore, is not part of the solution. 

Canada's Kyoto target: only buy stuf made in China.

Allot of thing are made in China. But a simple way for Canada to meet it's Kyoto target would be to buy more products made in China (instead of made in Canada). Furniture, cars and parts are often made in Canada. They could easily be imported from China. When you buy a product made in China instead of Canada, you are directly contributing to lowering Canada's global warming carbon emissions. Every China made product emits 100% less Canadian carbon than a Canadian made product. So when you replace all your light bulbs, make sure they are made in China.  

 

Come on people. Our reputation as a global warming fighter is a stake.

 

-The China Problem ;

-Ban Pets to Combat Global Warming. ;

-Global Warming: Don't Blame Me! ;

-Time For a Capital Gains Tax On Homes ;

-I Do Not Want To Move to Alberta ;

-Climate Change: local governments must pick up the...

Ban Pets to Combat Global Warming.

Ban pets to combat global warming.

Seriously, stock up on incandescent light bulbs, in Canada, they will soon be illegal! Light bulbs! That is the Conservative Party plan to combat global warming. Not reducing plane and car travel. Not reducing the number of McMansions sprouting on farmland around our cities. Light bulbs.

I like incandescent light bulbs (the regular kind). They are warm, easy on the eyes and dirt cheap. Dirt cheap is important when you are poor like me. Poor people by the way live in small apartments/crowded homes and walk everywhere.

I don't like halogen and fluorescent lights. I'm subjected to them all day at work and there is no way in Hell I'm going to subject myself to them in my basement apartment. I'm not even sure there is a net energy gain. In places like offices where lights are always on, they make sense. But is homes, lights are usually on only briefly, with a lot of switching on and off. Switching on and off considerably reduces the lifespan of a halogen or fluorescent light. Both of which cost substantially more than incandescent light bulbs.

So I say let us ban pets. It would save the average Canadian household hundreds of dollars a year AND would reduce global warming. A subtantial amount of fossil fuel is used to produce, transport and market pet food. Then there is all the energy humans spend to pay for said food. Then there is all the pet paraphernalia. And don't get me started on all those blogs about pets. I'm not sure how many people read them, but a few hundreds people here and there ads up to alot of electricity, much of which is powered by CO2 emitting coal and oil. And last but not least, pets, like humans, emit CO2! Banning people à la China would be outrageous. Banning pets, why not?

PS. Am I the only one who noticed that Al Gore was flying in first class in his movie "Inconvenient Truth" warning us about global warming? Ban first class! Ban private jets! Banning light bulbs?

Try this inconvenient truth: Fluorescent bulbs contain Mercury!
- NHDES Pollution Prevention Program - Mercury-
On the plus side, stray dogs eating garbage will be poisoned and die.

Other opinions:
- globeandmail.com: Global enlightenment turns off the bulb - Comments-

- Your View: Australia says lights out to incandescent bulbs-

Global Warming: Don't Blame Me!

I don't have a car (when you stop making payments, they take it away). I don't fly (I can't even afford the bus). I live in a 1 bedroom apartment and I walk to the grocery store...

I'm the ultimate environmentalist. And yet I still pay taxes that "combat" global warming. Global warming isn't MY fault. It is the fault of the people who have cars and/or houses.

THEY should pay. Not me.

Climate Change: local governments must pick up the slack, or else...

States like California have compensated for the inaction of their federal government on pollution and climate change. Now, granted, California is a prime example of what not to do in terms of land use and urban transportation. When you contribute so much to global warming, it is much easier to have an impact with reductions.

Still, Canadian local governments are heading in the wrong direction. Urban sprawl is still, remarkably, a growing problem. The city of Ottawa's proposed light rail line will only work if suburban development continues to grow on the OTHER SIDE of the green belt!

Some people will use the train, most wont! So this light rail could (will) contribute to more congestion and higher consumption of climate changing fossil fuels (see studies on San Fransisco's BART system).

Canadians have a choice: Back yards or no global warming. If most of us have back yards and side yards, then global warming will happen. Simple as that.

Most of the contribution to global warming is not controlled by the federal government. It is controlled by local (that's you Ontario) governments. Action is required immediately.

Garth Turner: Just Say No to Junk Science Mr Harper

From a cache of Garth Turner's blog (thank you Liberal Catnip and Google):

While many coming to this blog disagree, my position on Tuesday when the Harper Administration releases its plan will be that climate change is the greatest all-round threat this country faces, and that my nation's government should not let us down with half-measures, a curtsy to junk science or a sell-out to the tar sands.

Apparently that's what my constituents want, too. So, there you go.

It will be an interesting day, tomorrow.

Blame Rona Ambrose or You Could Take the Bus

Walk, bike or take the bus (or train or streetcar or subway). Those are the options if you care about global warming.

Rona Ambrose and the Conservatives appear to have opted for inaction when it comes to global warming. But does it really matter? The main cause for the rise in green house causing CO2 is transportation. Urban transportation. A local jurisdiction.

Public transportation takes to long? Factor in the cost of driving and owning your car. Take the amount of time it takes you to generate that money after taxes, and add that time to your daily car commute. Shocking isn't it?

Bus drivers live in your community. They contribute to the local economy. How many cars are made in Canada outside Ontario? None!

Intercity transportation is also a problem, although of much less significance. Avoid plane travel if possible. Alone in most cars, you use less fuel than on almost all planes (although driving is much more dangerous, something to consider). Via Rail is advertising it's overnights between Montreal and Toronto. That is certainly more carbon friendly than either driving or flying. Intercity bus may not be glamorous, but it is sufficiently comfortable for most of us.

Most of the urban movements are caused by land use. Do you really need a back yard? Factor in the 40 cents or so per kilometer that it costs to drive to Wal-Mart. No so low prices, eh.

I favor a carbon redistribution system (essentially a tax). The money would be redistributed equally among all citizens (including children and babies). The precedence was set in Alberta with the Ralf bucks. But even if nobody has the political courage to do that, there are individuals choices we can make.

And get a Digital Video Recorder. Driving becomes much less appealing when you aren't subjected to all those car commercials...

Other Blogs:
Environmental Benefits of Mass Transit ;

Rona Ambrose Does Not Exist

Rona Ambrose is a myth. Sure it appears that she exists -we hear her and see her- but many scientists agree this is a naturally occurring phenomenon that has nothing to do with a "Rona Ambrose".

Her children are an other myth. Because she has children, some say she must exist. But plenty of people have children that are not theirs. How do we know they weren't adopted? Just because she has children does not mean she exists. In a recent survey, most scientists couldn't even name her children. In fact, 99% of Guatemalan scientists had never even heard of Rona Ambrose.

But what about the hot air coming out of her mouth? Everybody knows that Parliament is an old building, it is drafty, there are some weird air currents. We need more studies to fully understand the phenomenon.

But we see her on TV? Yes, but that doesn't prove anything. There are plenty of dead people on TV. An with computer graphics...

So it is a left wing conspiracy? No, no, that would be silly. We just don't understand it properly. We need to study it more.

But it is possible she does exist? Most reputable studies to date show that over hundreds of years, Rona Ambrose does not exist. I mean, sure compared to the ice age, she exists, but compared to 600 years ago, on average, probably not.

And if it turns out Rona Ambrose does exist, we need to figure out how to prevent her. I mean we cant just bomb Ottawa or Alberta, that would be nuts. We need to figure out, if she does exist, a reasonable, rationale, sensible, made in Canada solution to the Rona Ambrose phenomenon.

We don't need a short term fix to a long term problem, we need a long term fix to a short term problem. That is what the United States is doing, and they don't have any signs of Rona Ambrose.

Inspired by Scientific Integrity's winning caricatures . Thanks to Concious Earth for the link.

Junk Mail Day: 911 was fake

Some of you may know that Tuesday is Junk Mail Day. There is very little mail on Tuesday because Tuesday mail is usually picked up on Saturday. Savvy marketers will therefor mail their junk mail Saturday so you get it in your otherwise empty mail box Tuesday.

So now you know.

Today, the only thing in my mail box was a DVD. Cool, a free DVD ! It was a propaganda video telling us that the horrible events of September 11, 2001, were all a conspiracy by the Bush administration and Israel to motivate the USA into going to war with Arab countries.

Wow.

I'm not sure what the agenda behind the video is, or who paid for it, but that was one unconvincing movie.

The best part was when, for not apparent reason, they show us that monorails and sky scrapers are the way of the future and the solution to all are problems. Monorail à la Simpsons , Monorails in real life , Sky scraper utopia .

The worse part of this video wasn't the unbelievable theories and the manipulative arguments. No, the worse part was it was boring!

The guy at the beginning said books were not visual enough. So we watch a video of people talk at a conference. Then we watch a video conference in some studio (supposedly in Canada). A few dozen slides, the 911 video we have seen a billion times and that's it.

Towards the end, the actor moderating the conference tells us we have to stop using so much oil, so he tells us he drove long distance between A and B for 85$ in his hybrid car, which, the actor tells us, is cheaper then by Grey Hound (intercity bus).

Wow.

1.Hybrid technology does not save any fuel on intercity highway travel (unless you are used to breaking a lot).
2. Using a hybrid car, alone, uses many times more fuel than taking an intercity bus.
3. Gas is a very small part of the cost of driving. If people calculated the actual cost of driving per km/mile (depreciation, oil, tires, breaks, insurance, etc.) they would drive much less.

The terrorists that caused the destruction in NY City, Washington DC and Pennsylvania scared me. But thinking that people might believe any part of this video is terrorising!

Sam

INDEX

Global Climate Change