<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Alberta sets aside nearly $4 billion for public transport and CCS]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Wolverine http://www.grist.org/article/a-billion-here-a-billion-there/ Thu, 10 Jul 2008 08:10:29 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/a-billion-here-a-billion-there/1 Oy Vey!

Look, I know all you more conservative enviros are wetting your pants over global warming, but there are other, equally and more serious, environmental and ecological problems.  The main problem caused by getting oil from tar sands is the direct destruction of Alberta's boreal forest, including the Athabasca River that runs through it.  http://thetyee.ca/Views/2007/09/20/TarSands/  The extra greenhouse gas emissions that are being and will be caused by use of this source of oil are a distant second in the environmental and ecological harms they'll cause.

Second, DOING something about tar sands would be prohibiting it.  Merely spending some of its profits on public transit is better than, well, not doing so, but exponentially worse than just prohibiting oil production from tar sands.  I just can't take any enviro seriously who thinks that spending money is a solution to everything.  Money will only solve certain problems; a major change in human attitudes toward the natural world and human behaviors is what's needed, and spending money will not cause those changes.

]]> Oy Vey!

Look, I know all you more conservative enviros are wetting your pants over global warming, but there are other, equally and more serious, environmental and ecological problems.  The main problem caused by getting oil from tar sands is the direct destruction of Alberta's boreal forest, including the Athabasca River that runs through it.  http://thetyee.ca/Views/2007/09/20/TarSands/  The extra greenhouse gas emissions that are being and will be caused by use of this source of oil are a distant second in the environmental and ecological harms they'll cause.

Second, DOING something about tar sands would be prohibiting it.  Merely spending some of its profits on public transit is better than, well, not doing so, but exponentially worse than just prohibiting oil production from tar sands.  I just can't take any enviro seriously who thinks that spending money is a solution to everything.  Money will only solve certain problems; a major change in human attitudes toward the natural world and human behaviors is what's needed, and spending money will not cause those changes.

]]> Comment #2 by djhanak http://www.grist.org/article/a-billion-here-a-billion-there/ Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:15:54 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/a-billion-here-a-billion-there/2 CO2 Reduction

The IPCC published a full report on CCS, which is described by the IPCC as one climate change mitigation strategy that is possible with current technologies.  It is being used NOW, and does not require decades of punishing taxes to effect a real, measureable, reduction of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere.  This is the ultimate point of the entire UNFCC isn't it?

Many of the critics are simply showing their true colours in their responses to CCS initiatives.  They have no desire to reduce CO2 emissions, really.  What they want is to prohibit the use of oil, but have dressed this up as a dubious fancy-pants international treaty that deals with a combustion by-product.  So now, when there is in fact a practical way to deal with some of the combustion byproduct, they thow their hands over their ears, yelling Noooooooooo .....

Silliness

]]> CO2 Reduction

The IPCC published a full report on CCS, which is described by the IPCC as one climate change mitigation strategy that is possible with current technologies.  It is being used NOW, and does not require decades of punishing taxes to effect a real, measureable, reduction of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere.  This is the ultimate point of the entire UNFCC isn't it?

Many of the critics are simply showing their true colours in their responses to CCS initiatives.  They have no desire to reduce CO2 emissions, really.  What they want is to prohibit the use of oil, but have dressed this up as a dubious fancy-pants international treaty that deals with a combustion by-product.  So now, when there is in fact a practical way to deal with some of the combustion byproduct, they thow their hands over their ears, yelling Noooooooooo .....

Silliness

]]> Comment #3 by Paleocon http://www.grist.org/article/a-billion-here-a-billion-there/ Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:58:52 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/a-billion-here-a-billion-there/3 Another denier

Only a denier would make the claim that money can't solve the problem.  The best thing to do to save Earth is to take money from some people, extract a postage and handling fee, and give what is left to others.

Like the extremely successful UN Oil for Food program which employed thousands of Policy Directors and the like. Many earned more than $200,000 US per year.

AGW is the growth industry of the 21st century.

Often misunderestimated

]]> Another denier

Only a denier would make the claim that money can't solve the problem.  The best thing to do to save Earth is to take money from some people, extract a postage and handling fee, and give what is left to others.

Like the extremely successful UN Oil for Food program which employed thousands of Policy Directors and the like. Many earned more than $200,000 US per year.

AGW is the growth industry of the 21st century.

Often misunderestimated

]]>