Pandora wrote: deisman03 wrote: Sadie222 wrote: That's unfortunate.
Gord_Alberta wrote: The fact that environmentalists will not consider nuclear power - ensures Vermilion Energy will do well... The hysteria of the Three Mile Island disaster never met facts!
https://nypost.com/2019/09/22/three-mile-islands-recent-closure-shows-what-people-dont-realize-about-nuclear-power/
What's unfortunate is the little girl from Sweden is going to become very rich out of all the mainstream media attention and the spinoffs. There is a lot of money being made out of climate change theories, which have never panned out.
I'm a bit older than most here but back in the sixties, the parents of the scientists proclaiming climate disaster were predicting that northern hemispheres would be covered in blankets of snow and ice by 2000 and that there would be a centuries long ice age.
I think I'll just wait and see.
So far the only thing I can see with the Canadian Carbon taxes is that it's a way for the present Liberal government to pay for their dumping of over $30 billion of cash offshore over the last four years. BIG SCAM, but that's what Liberals are all about.
deisman I can probably match you on the age basis and therefore we get labeled. It is nice to see that if we don't think the same as certain individuals we must be right wingers -- automatically.
I haven't really figured out what the "carbon tax" is actually being used for. We have had it in B.C. for a longer period than the other provinces. It was referred to as being "neutral". I'm not sure again what that means. There are other statements in the Federal pledge that says they will take it in one hand and give it back in the other.
Some companies 'buy' carbon credits - what does that accomplish?
The grocery stores are going to change from plastic bags back to paper bags. Is there a calculation as to how many trees have to be cut down to supply all those bags. Recently I have seen they now have 'biodegradable' grocery bags. Maybe that is a better plan? Doing something to figure out how to better recycle or dispose of "single use" plastic would be doing something constructive. Pollution, other than carbon pollution, I think is more critical.
If the environmentalists were to rid their homes of everything made from a petroleum product to enforce their belief regarding fossil fuels there would not be much left.
I don't have a problem agreeing that population growth make's a massive challenge to "pollution" per se. We have to do a better job in fighting certain forms of pollution other than "carbon" pollution -- and there are all kinds. And we are smart enough to figure those things out in a calm and rational manner.
What I really don't like is the approach of "scare mongering" used by politicians and mainstream media to frighten everybody, especially younger people, by making completely irresponsible statements like the world will end in twelve years, the Pacific Islands will be completely under water in ten years, the Arctic Ice cap will be gone in "x" years, etc.
I believe that approach is completely out of line, as I said, irresponsible -- and that is just one man's opinion - someone who has been watching and listening to all this for 80 years.
A few years back a majority of us had a trait or attribute or characteristic called common sense. That trait is not as visible these days in the general public.
And the growth in media has just compounded the ease of "scare effect".