Comments elasticsoul has made

  • We Need a New Green Economy

    We're past the point of individual actions being enough - it is time for some help from the government, which hasn't the courage to lead, the humility to follow, or even the sense to get out of the way.

    • I would love to take a high-speed train rather than an airplane - but I can't, because our government subsidises aiports and highways rather than directing my tax dollars to rebuilding the train system.
    • I would love to eat only organic, but I can't because our government subsidises agribusiness industrial farming practices.
    • I would love to live in a home that is built with natural, local materials and is heated by the sun, but our government subsidises Big Oil so heavily that it is "cheaper" to build particle board cubes heated by mega-energy plants.

    The list goes on-and-on, and affects every area of our lives. A carbon tax would favour local manufacturing, as the farther something is shipped, the higher the tax. Cap-and-trade for carbon emissions would favour cleaner businesses. Shifting taxes from income to pollution would give us more money to spend on cleaner products, and would favour cleaner companies.

    It is time for our government to start being part of the solution. Big corporations have monopolized control of our elected officials, and it is time for us to take it back.

    For my part, I first joined the local Green Party and then decided to run federally, and support for the Canadian Green Party is rising steadily in response to the non-leadership displayed by the other parties.

    The time has come to vote with your feet, by supporting only candidates who 'get it' and will do the right thing. United we stand, and so far we have not been. Our elected government is supposed to be an expression of our collective will, and it is not. It is time to make it so.

    * Inconvenient Truth presenter * Green Party of Canada candidate

    On Tidwell responds to scientists responding to Tidwell posted 2 years, 2 months ago 28 Responses

  • Conservation needs to become 'cool' again

    We really do need to change our whole way of thinking; it's not enough to throw money at alternative energy.

    First, we must look at how to use less but have more when it comes to our standard of living. For example, a solar-heated house can cost about the same to build, yet can cost much less (obviously) to heat and cool. It can also be far more comfortable to live in (because of the thick walls that hold heat) and can hold its value much better (because if you build a house out of cob rather than 2x6s, it can easily last 500 years or more).

    Every decision must take into account how to live in harmony with the environment, and progressives must stop being 'protestors' and instead become leaders. There are countless examples around the world of better ways to do things - we must show and tell how we can implement those ways in our country as part of a 'new green economy,' as I've been calling it.

    * Inconvenient Truth presenter * Green Party of Canada candidate

    On Carl Pope reviews Break Through by Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger posted 2 years, 2 months ago 14 Responses

  • PETA may win the battle but lose the war

    For all of us. PETA's latest ad series is divisive, and that's just dumb. They're promoting their particular agenda (and I am a vegetarian) over saving the planet and moving to a more sustainable way-of-living. Denigrating Al Gore? That's just stupid, whatever you think of him. You'd think PETA was being funded by the Republican Party.

    United we stand, divided we fall is as true now as it ever was. PETA's stance - that you can't be a meat-eating environmentalist - will rightly be mocked as hypocritical, and will paint the sustainable movement as unrealistic and fanatical. Detractors will latch onto PETA's message and say that:

    1. Anyone who drives a car is not an environmentalist.
    2. Anyone who flies in a place...
    3. Anyone who uses a computer...
    4. Anyone whose home is not passively solar-heated...
    5. Anyone who works for a large company...

    Etc, etc. Therefore, it is impossible to be an environmentalist, and so why even try? PETA has provided an easy way to mock people who want to make the world a better place, by implying that you go all-the-way - or you're nothing.

    * Inconvenient Truth presenter * Green Party of Canada candidate

    On Animal-rights group makes the stupid claim that enviros must be vegetarians posted 2 years, 2 months ago 208 Responses

  • The future is not (yet) predetermined

    [just posted this comment in another, similar thread]

    And nobody is saying we should ignore reality, which is that we are in a bad way and getting rapidly worse. The best scientific estimates (Hansen and others) are that we have less than ten years to make significant changes or we will pass a tipping point of no return. Beyond this point, catastrophic climate change will be unavoidable, and it is quite likely that civilization-as-we-know-it will be destroyed or at best severely damaged.

    When I took the Inconvenient Truth training, Mr. Gore talked about a "Hope and Despair" budget. Focus too much on the negative, and people give up because the problem seems overwhelming or believe that it is already too late. This is not what the scientists are saying - we do have some time, but not much.

    The point of this article was that we need to get much better, fast, at protraying a better world. Use the impending disaster to motivate people to get moving - but toward what? I have been trying to show what Canada could be like, if we so choose, here: A Vision of Canada

    Can it be done? It must be done. To quote Churchill: "It's not enough that we do our best; sometimes we have to do what's required."

    * Inconvenient Truth presenter * Green Party of Canada candidate

    On Al Gore does both posted 2 years, 4 months ago 6 Responses

  • The point of the article...


    is not that we should ignore reality, which is that we are in a bad way and getting rapidly worse. The best scientific estimates (Hansen and others) are that we have less than ten years to make significant changes or we will pass a tipping point of no return. Beyond this point, catastrophic climate change will be unavoidable, and it is quite likely that civilization-as-we-know-it will be destroyed or at best severely damaged.

    When I took the Inconvenient Truth training, Mr. Gore talked about a "Hope and Despair" budget. Focus too much on the negative, and people give up because the problem seems overwhelming or believe that it is already too late. This is not what the scientists are saying - we do have some time, but not much.

    The point of this article was that we need to get much better, fast, at protraying a better world. Use the impending disaster to motivate people to get moving - but toward what? I have been trying to show what Canada could be like, if we so choose, here: A Vision of Canada

    Can it be done? It must be done. To quote Churchill: "It's not enough that we do our best; sometimes we have to do what's required."

    * Inconvenient Truth presenter * Green Party of Canada candidate

    On How to talk about the future without depressing everyone posted 2 years, 4 months ago 54 Responses

  • Cradle to Cradle

    This book, by William McDonough and his business partner describes the philosophy of working with nature, where what we do improves the environment - as nature herself does. They describe several projects where the authors created sustainable, health-giving industrial processes.

    And the book itself was made of some new material that was designed to be 'upcycled,' meaning it could be remade into something something of similar or higher quality than a book - not a park bench. McDonough and his partner are leading by example.On A top ten list from the U.K. posted 2 years, 11 months ago 7 Responses

  • Hilarious article

    Here in Canada, we have our own collection of clueless and/or corrupt journalists - think Tom Harris and Terence Cocoran. (The latter wrote a very  smooth article explaining why scientific consensus equals conspiracy or groupthink or corruption - something other than, consensus, anyway.)

    If Noonan's article is icing on any cake, then...French Revolution again, anyone? On I'm goin' back to Noonan, Noonan, Noonan posted 3 years, 4 months ago 8 Responses

  • It's the economy... :-)

    Our economic system has to change if there is to be a future that includes human civilization. Communism turns into murderous, totalitarian dictatorships wherever it is attempted on a large scale. American-style capitalism isn't doing much better. We need to return to small-scale capitalism with local business owners; sorry, no more global corporations. If we keep the corps, they'll impose geo-engineering solutions on us, or corn-based ethanol, or some other non-reality-based ideas.

    This, I think is causing much denial in some and despair in others. What are the chances of us changing the economic system without a massive social collapse before or during? On Drop that apocalyptic vision and start imagining a positive future posted 3 years, 4 months ago 56 Responses

  • Andy and those who want refutations

    Grist: can you provide a link or two to sites that refute this nonsense?

    To everyone who wants Grist writers to spend time refuting rubbish...why aren't you asking Inhofe and company for their data? Push the need for proof back on the people disputing the science. Don't try and force legitimate scientists to constantly disprove nonsensical, unsubstantiated, greed-driven rants. It's your world, too, but most of us don't want to face up to reality, especially when people like Inhofe tell us more pleasing lies. Why on earth are you believing a politician over thousands and thousands of scientists? What happened to independent Americans, distrustful of big (or any) government?

    Look, people like Inhofe and the CEOs are - literally - signing death warrants for our children, possibly even for us. They have a heck of a lot more money, land, and resources than most; who do you think will suffer more: them or us? These are people who believe in social Darwinism and that 'might is right'; and if you and your progeny cease to exist, or became serfs in the new world order, it will only prove that you were unfit, while the current big power brokers have clearly demonstrated their superiority.

    Despite this, I will take a shot at a few bits of the drivel:


    AP chose to ignore the scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science presented in former Vice President Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth."

    Scores? Name some reputable scientists who have published their theories and data on climate change in peer-reviewed journals - and who maintain that GW is not due to human GHG emissions. You won't be able to find any, or at best only a few whose views are not supported by the bulk of the existing data. So now you have to prove a conspiracy among thousands of scientists working at hundreds of universities, government organizations, and other organizations, in dozens of countries. I believe the IPCC report was prepared by 1500-2000 scientists. The people quoted by Inhofe are the same people who are quoted every time, and I don't think any of them have published anything on climate change recently. The least in-credible is Lindzen, but how much actual research has he done or reviewed? His publication record in the past 4-5 years is near-zero, not counting EDITORIALS in the Wall Street Journal....

    In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of the "more than 100 top climate researchers" they attempted to contact to review "An Inconvenient Truth." AP should also name all 19 scientists who gave Gore "five stars for accuracy." AP claims 19 scientists viewed Gore's movie, but it only quotes five of them in its article. AP should also release the names of the so-called scientific "skeptics" they claim to have contacted.

    Why? What would this prove? Remember, thousands of reputable scientists agree.  Perhaps it would allow Inhofe to attack those scientists, as another senator has launched a personal investigation into the authors of the "hockey stick" graph.

    Skipping the slag at Correll - if you dispute the science, then dispute the science. Don't launch ad hominem attacks to distract people from the science.


    The AP also chose to ignore Gore's reliance on the now-discredited "hockey stick" by Dr. Michael Mann, which claims that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, then spiked upward in the 20th century, and that the 1990's were the warmest decade in at least 1000 years. Last week's National Academy of Sciences report dispelled Mann's often cited claims by reaffirming the existence of both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. See Senator Inhofe's statement on the broken "Hockey Stick."

    This is a flat-out lie. The NAS report largely AFFIRMED the hockey stick. No scientist is disputing the MWP or the LIA. Neither one has anything to do with the current warming.

    Somebody else can tackle the rest if they choose, but I think the effort is largely wasted. The average American is still too committed to hearing what s/he wants to hear.On Inhofe responds to AP with flurry of BS posted 3 years, 5 months ago 15 Responses