Sure Boom boom, there are exceptions. I'm talking about hundreds of thousands of cars that pour into my city every day.
The collective effect of individual exceptionalism is disastrous. Unfortunately, the car is so pervasive that nobody, left or right, seems willing to take responsibility for their own actions.
How many people on this thread, complaining about the Conservatives, own a car?
Agreed. When I lived in Toronto (late 1970's) traffic on the QEW and 401 was absolutely insane. I gather it's not gotten much better.
I know that on line polls mean next to nothing, but I thought this was interesting, on the Globe & Mail site:
quote:
Should Canada work to meet its Kyoto commitment?Yes
(71%) 2607 votes
No
(29%) 1059 votes
One of the articles recently was about Ambrose and the Bonn summit. 150 comments, not ONE of them in favour of the conservative government's stand on this issue. I thought the G&M was Canada's business paper.
But I see Harpercrite has put forth a notion that all of Canada's fuel be 5% ethanol by 2010. Neutral environmental policy -- great politics. If your idea of great politics is to fool voters into thinking you're doing something rather than actually working toward a solution. Made in Canada!
quote:
But I see Harpercrite has put forth a notion that all of Canada's fuel be 5% ethanol by 2010. Neutral environmental policy -- great politics. If your idea of great politics is to fool voters into thinking you're doing something rather than actually working toward a solution. Made in Canada!
I was in Regina today as Rona Ambrose made the ethanol announcement at the Hotel Sask.
Actually, I was walking outside the Hotel Sask with a sign reading 'Scrap Ambrose--Save Kyoto' during her noon-hour press conference.
About 20 of us showed up at the Regina airport Monday evening to wait for Ambrose's arrival by plane, and we made it onto the CBC News, holding our pro-Kyoto signs and singing songs.
Ambrose, however, didn't get off the plane and descend the escalator with all the other passengers, instead exiting by another route--according to CBC Newsworld. Perhaps the prospect of facing a small crowd made up mostly of middle-aged women holding signs and song sheets was too frightening for the novice Minister of the Environment.
Anyway, this morning, kook that I am, I took my sign to the Hotel Sask at lunchtime and paced for a bit on the sidewalk out front, all by my lonesome.
About a dozen passersby offered their encouragement, while a couple more honked or gave the thumbs up from passing vehicles.
In the end, I also got about 10 seconds on the local CTV suppertime newscast (where I was identified as a 'lone demonstrator'), saying that Ambrose's ethanol announcement was no replacement for a Kyoto plan.
Not the best organized effort at protest, I admit, but here's hoping more and more people will see through what this government is doing on the environment.
[ 23 May 2006: Message edited by: sgm ]
[url=http://tinyurl.com/rpume]Charest to go it alone on Kyoto climate accord[/url]
QUEBEC and OTTAWA — Quebec Premier Jean Charest says his province will meet its Kyoto targets regardless of whether Ottawa ultimately pulls out of the international climate-change deal.
The Premier's declaration on the floor of Quebec's National Assembly sets up a potential feud between Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his closest provincial ally.
Mr. Charest said his government will soon table a plan to meet its obligations under the accord.
- snip -
Question: couldn't the other provinces follow this example, especially Ontario?
Todays Globe poll, 16,000 reporting, shows 70% of participants want Canada to adhere to Kyoto. Kudos to Charest, to stand apart from the sheep always takes courage.
Question: couldn't the other provinces follow Charest's example, especially Ontario?
Well, Quebec has a bit of a head start with HydroQuebec.
The bulk of our 'new' CO2 emissions come from Alberta, and specifically the tar sands. Alberta won't go along with anything, but they will gladly accept all the corporate runaways from any other province that dares to do anything.
quote:
Originally posted by arborman:The bulk of our 'new' CO2 emissions come from Alberta, and specifically the tar sands. Alberta won't go along with anything, but they will gladly accept all the corporate runaways from any other province that dares to do anything.
[img]frown.gif" border="0[/img] [img]frown.gif" border="0[/img] [img]frown.gif" border="0[/img] [img]frown.gif" border="0[/img]
Hey, sgm -- I saw your picture in my local paper this morning. You were identified by name, rather than as a "lone demonstrator". Way to go!!
Hmm. Looks like the energy companies are lining up to feed at the federal trough:
quote:
Ethanol enigma hangs over industry
PATRICK BRETHOUR AND GREG KEENAN[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060523.wxr-ethanol2... and Mail Update[/url]
Ottawa is starting to talk with the provinces about how to dramatically increase Canada's consumption of ethanol — to 5 per cent of total fuel consumption by 2010 — but any government-legislated mandate is going to run into the daunting economics of the biofuels sector, and the mutually reinforcing roadblocks of producers, consumers, car makers and retailers.
..........................
Mr. Baker said he welcomes the announcement that Ottawa is moving to increase ethanol consumption. But he also wants the federal government to introduce incentives — similar to those handed to the oil sands sector a decade ago — that will reduce the upfront costs of expanding the processing capacity for biofuels. Those incentives allow oil sands companies to write off all of their capital costs in a single year, allowing them to defer corporate taxes.
On Newman's show tonight, a Liberal MP from Quebec (forgot his name) said he is introducing a Private Member's Bill (was introduced yesterday, to be debated next Monday) to force the Cons to implement the Kyoto Accord as already in place. The Bill has the backing of all three Opposition parties. The Cons can delay the Bill by putting up all 125 members to speak against it, but it will pass, and then we'll see how much respect Harpoon has for Parliament. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
[url=http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/A... deals abandoned?[/url]
The federal government appears set to walk away from Liberal agreements that would have given the provinces millions of dollars to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
[url=http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/A... angers tech firms[/url]
[b]Putting climate program in limbo not only hurts progress but also innovation, say companies that were working on solutions[/b]
- snip -
"The do-nothing option is not free," says Len Eddy, president of AgCert Canada, the Edmonton-based Canadian branch of an international company that invests in emissions-cutting projects. "It's an extremely expensive option. "
Analysts estimate the lost investment this year totals as much as $1 billion. It's gone forever, Eddy says.
Small entrepreneurial firms were developing technologies, says Steve Young, head of greenhousegasmangement.com, a Guelph company that helps projects navigate the maze of creating and selling credits. "They're put on ice now. There's a whole chill of activity."
Many, Young says, "are looking toward the United States" — where, despite foot-dragging by President George W. Bush, climate-change work is underway at the state and local levels. "The activity is transferring there."
[url=http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/A... ethanol plan waste of money — and energy[/url]
- snip -
[b]For many experts, ethanol is a long-running eco-hoax.[/b] Yes, gasoline with a mandated 5 per cent ethanol content does burn more cleanly. (In the sickly farm economy of the U.S. Midwest and Plains states, producers are pushing for 85 per cent ethanol content, and the Saskatchewan government wants at least 10 per cent.)
But ethanol, sad to say, consumes more energy in its production than it contains. Traditional gasoline is actually far more energy-efficient, requiring about 22,000 British thermal units per gallon to produce, and containing 116,000 BTUs of energy per gallon. A gallon of ethanol takes about 98,000 BTUs to produce, but contains only 76,000 BTUs of energy.
And because ethanol contains only two-thirds the energy of gasoline, blending it into gasoline reduces the fuel's heat content — and the distance a vehicle can travel per fill-up of the stuff. All to say that U.S. President George W. Bush was following the script of the farm lobby and not scientific reality in his latest State of the Union assertion that "the more ethanol we use, the less crude oil we consume." Certainly it is true that the more ethanol we consume, the richer Cargill Inc., Archer Daniels Midland Co. and other ethanol refiner-promoters get, since the current return on sales from ethanol production is a heady 80 per cent.
The truth is ethanol not only burns more energy than it saves, it is a notorious sponge for taxpayer handouts. The U.S. Treasury was dinged to the tune of $37 billion (U.S.) in corn-producer subsidies between 1995 and 2003. Ontario, where about two-thirds of Canada's corn is produced, is subsidizing ethanol producers by $500 million (Cdn.) over the next decade. If we got serious about ethanol-blended gasoline, a multibillion-dollar infrastructure of specialized refineries, pipelines and service stations would have to be built to accommodate it.
Oh, and prices for meat and poultry will rise in tandem with increased corn-feed costs as the over-supply of corn is absorbed by boosting ethanol production.
quote:
Hey, sgm -- I saw your picture in my local paper this morning. You were identified by name, rather than as a "lone demonstrator". Way to go!!
Good to hear.
I knew the Canadian Press guy snapped me, so thanks for letting me know it was published.
I wonder how they figure out the energy required to produce a liter of mineral-oil or ethanol? Seems to me that it must be way higher for oil then for ethanol. Oil production takes many many years and goes through many convoluted processes before you can use it in an engine. Whereas ethanol energy was only sunshine a few months before you put it in your tank. But even the ethanol process will barely convert one or two percent of the sunshine energy into ethanol energy.
I think it depends on where you get the oil. The tar sands are horrifically energy inefficient for oil production. On the other hand, the last great lakes of oil, just waiting for us to stick a straw in and start guzzling, are under the sands of Iraq. Production there would cost about $4/bbl, as opposed to ~$3o/bbl in the tar sands. For some reason, that country has been in the news a lot lately.
quote:
But ethanol, sad to say, consumes more energy in its production than it contains. Traditional gasoline is actually far more energy-efficient, requiring about 22,000 British thermal units per gallon to produce, and containing 116,000 BTUs of energy per gallon. A gallon of ethanol takes about 98,000 BTUs to produce, but contains only 76,000 BTUs of energy.And because ethanol contains only two-thirds the energy of gasoline, blending it into gasoline reduces the fuel's heat content — and the distance a vehicle can travel per fill-up of the stuff. ... Certainly it is true that the more ethanol we consume, the richer Cargill Inc., Archer Daniels Midland Co. and other ethanol refiner-promoters get, since the current return on sales from ethanol production is a heady 80 per cent.
I've read other audits that argue that ethanol production is more efficient, so the assertion that it is not is quite debatable.
In terms of engines and fuel efficiency, I do belive that yeah, ethanol is less efficient, so the article is correct in that way. And as per the US ethanol expansion, I have to agree that's is another way of delvering farm subsidies that enirch BIG agribusinesses.
I'm not a big fan of corn (or grain) ethanol; I'd much rather see work go into biomass fuels, such as they are investigating in Nipawin.
[ 26 May 2006: Message edited by: saskganesh ]
quote:
But ethanol, sad to say, consumes more energy in its production than it contains.
[QB][/QB]
This is a canard that's often repeated by the oil industry but is no longer accurate. These days, and the brazilians are the pinoeers at this--ethanol is being produced from the entire plant mass, not merely from ears of corn, and this greatly increases the efficiency of the process.
The efficiency numbers parroted by oil lobbyists all reflect the fuel produced by processing ears of corn only.
Back in the first energy crisis 30 years when oil was "peanuts" compared to today, ethanol was added to 50 cent a gallon gasoline to make it cheaper.
I remember using absolute ethanol in the lab in the 70's (and yes I drank some mixed with pineapple juice) and being told how cheap it was with no government taxes.
The question is, then is ethanol in fact more expensive and deserving of subsidies or have the ethanol people just figured out that they can reference their price to the price of gasoline and get guilty politicians to subsidize it.
quote:
Originally posted by saskganesh:
I'm not a big fan of corn (or grain) ethanol; I'd much rather see work go into biomass fuels, such as they are investigating in Nipawin.
As in Nipawan Saskatchewan? There's a research centre there?
In the weekly NDP email, there was this bit of info: Harpoon has addded gas-guzzling SUVs to his motorcade. [img]frown.gif" border="0[/img]
From today's post at my blog, Politics'n'Poetry:
Ambrose Lies?
The Toronto Star suggests the Harperites are misleading the public on Canada's Kyoto targets.
The Harper government fired the first salvos in this battle when Ambrose announced in the Commons April 7 that national emissions "are actually up by 30 per cent." The Prime Minister then weighed into the fray April 25, saying Canada's emissions had increased by 30 per cent above the Kyoto target.
Other Conservatives jumped on the bandwagon, claiming the failure of Liberal Kyoto policies was obvious because in 2003, emissions were up by only 24 per cent but then jumped all the way to 30 per cent in one year.
All those statements are factually wrong, according to the voluminous "National Inventory Report" prepared by Ambrose's own department and filed last month with the UN's Framework Convention for Climate Change, the agency that meets in Bonn.
Comparing emissions to 1990, the key base year in the Kyoto pact, the report concluded that:
* Canada's 758 million tonnes of emissions in 2004 were 26.6 per cent higher than the 599 million tonnes in 1990 — not the claimed 30 per cent.
* After adjusting for better information, the correct figure for 2003 emissions was 25.9 per cent higher than in 1990 — not the quoted 24 per cent.
* The year-to-year emissions increase was four million tonnes — one of the smallest annual hikes recorded — because less coal was burned in electrical power plants as nuclear plants came back into service.
Fudging numbers to make Kyoto commitments seem impossible to reach is deplorable for a party that campaigned so righteously to Stand Up for Canada! To whose Canada were they referring?
Yes, Canada is off-target on Kyoto but surely that is no reason to stop striving for the goals to which we've committed!
Thanks to LE REVUE GAUCHE - Left Analysis And Comment for the lead.
quote:
[ 27 May 2006: Message edited by: Berlynn ]
Ok, so to hell with the Harpercrites. We all know they have their heads up their asses and will undermine anything that threatens oil company profits. We've known that since the 80s. As a result, I'm going to keep fighting them, keep donating to the NDP, keep doing what I can politically.
In the meantime, what are we going to do about climate change? Let the government piss into the hurricane, what will we as private citizens do to take responsibility for the future of our species? Sooner or later they will come around, if they realize that we are giving up on them.
I mean you, and you...
1. Sell the fucking car. No, you don't need it as bad as my kid needs a civilization to retire in 60 years from now, so sell it already. I'm serious. Get over yourself. Get a bike. Move closer to work, or get a job closer to home. Take the bus. Carpool. Whatever, but stop poisoning my planet for your own narrow desires. And for the love of all that's holy, stop pissing and moaning about gas prices. We need them higher, not lower. The rural exceptionalism argument is losing its value too.
2. Solar heating. We burn a lot of fuel heating our houses, and we don't have to. Solar heating systems pay for themselves within about 5-8 years, if we assume conventional heating costs will not rise. I wouldn't make that assumption myself.
3. Wind power. Vancouver is developing a wind power co-operative, and we are getting a crapload of people to each throw in a few bucks, and we're going to build a tower. Then we'll build another one. They aren't that expensive, and they will pay for themselves fairly quickly - while gas just keeps costing more.
4. Solar power. Some provinces allow the meter to run backwards when you produce more than you use. And once you buy the thing, your maintenance is over - it sits there, producing power until someone breaks it. (it does get a bit less efficient after a couple of decades, but hell - show me a generator that doesn't).
5. USE LESS ENERGY. Turn off the lights when you aren't in the room. Wear a sweater in the winter. buy a good blanket. Sell the fucking car.
6. Insulate.
Let the Harpers and their cronies fry the planet. Whatever happens, it won't be because of me. And I'm losing patience for the rest of our myopic society.
On the upside, as economic activity collapses, our emissions are likely to shrink dramatically, as well as our exploitation of the world's resources. We may bounce back, hopefully with our heads screwed on right, but not without a hell of a lot of pain.
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
[b]In the weekly NDP email, there was this bit of info: Harpoon has addded gas-guzzling SUVs to his motorcade. [img]frown.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]
What a lovely example to set! [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
OK, arborman, you want to know what some of us have done.
In 1981 we started our family which since has grown from two to six. Between school and work we used to have to travel about 60,000 km/year and heat this old brick home with about 600 gallons (~2000 liters) of oil/year.
Now in 2006, with six in the family we are down to 40,000 km/year and the last ten years we have switched to a renewable energy sourse to heat our better insulated home. And to my own surprise our electricity consumption has gone done about 20 percent since 1981. Probably due to more efficient appliances and lights.
In another three years we hope to be down to about 20,000 km/year and probably get another 20 percent reduction in our electrical energy needs. Ofcourse the kids will be leaving home and set up their own energy consuming units to replace those that have switched off altogether.
But ofcourse that will be all semantics if some others use it as an oportunity to go for a hot air balloon trip, or some helicopter skiing, or Harpocon gets an SUV.
We need an individual progressive carbon tax.
Unless the really heavy polluters such as corporations and manufacturers and oil companies are also brought to heel, the tiny changes any of us make won't amount to a hill of beans.
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
[b]Unless the really heavy polluters such as corporations and manufacturers and oil companies are also brought to heel, the tiny changes any of us make won't amount to a hill of beans.[/b]
Sure, and I'll fight for that every day. But unless I live my values, I can't rightfully criticise others who don't.
And for some reason, my values include building a sustainable society. My parenthood requires that I do everything I can to make sure my son doesn't live in some Dark Age. We as a species will never emerge from another dark age - we won't have the easily accessible resources that we did for building our civilizations. It's now or never.
And that means personal responsibility. It also means holding corporations responsible. My preference would be to restructure corporations altogether, or scrap them as a legal concept. That's beside the point.
We can't change the laws until we get Harper and his gang out, and get in someone who actually understands the word 'sustainable'. I'll be doing everything I can to make that happen, but that's not enough. We have to do it on an individual level too, and do everything we can to bring other individuals along as well.
I'm done making allowances for individuals who 'need' a car. Nobody 'needs' a car, except as a result of specific life choices. Time to take responsibility for those choices.
Again, if the people get their shit together, the governments will have no choice but to tag along. Until we do, the government will always try to ignore the issue, because it means taking risks and implementing meaningful change. No politician will do that unless they have no choice.
bump
quote:
Early in the debate over Canada's Afghanistan deployment, Prime Minister Stephen Harper pledged that "Canadians don't cut and run." Foreign Affairs Minister Peter McKay told reporters in Kandahar that Canada would stay until we "finish the job." When the going gets tough, Canadians get going. If we make an international commitment, we live up to it. Well, except where our commitment to the international effort against climate change is concerned. That's different.
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/in_cahoots.shtml?x=50194]Jim Stanford, CAW[/url]
Good point Michelle. But it shows again that Harper is more interested to keep up with Jones at our southern border. [img]frown.gif" border="0[/img]
[url=http://tinyurl.com/oyxn6]Provinces can pay Kyoto tab, PM says [/url]
OTTAWA — Provinces are free to pay for it themselves if they want to meet Kyoto's greenhouse-gas reduction targets, Prime Minister Stephen Harper told the House of Commons yesterday in an apparent rejection of Quebec's $328-million request for a provincial Kyoto plan.
Yesterday's meeting of the House of Commons was the first since Quebec Premier Jean Charest and the rest of the National Assembly supported a motion urging Ottawa to meet its Kyoto reduction targets.
The motion also called for the federal government to help finance Quebec's emission reduction programs, a proposition Bloc Quйbйcois Gilles Duceppe asked Mr. Harper to support yesterday.
"This government encourages discussions between the federal government and the provinces on climate change and programs that can improve the situation," Mr. Harper replied in French. [b]"If a provincial government wants to take certain decisions, their own decisions in their own jurisdictions, they can also use their own money."[/b]
- snip -
Jesus, does anyone think this fucking asshole will get a majority? I mean, he has done everything wrong - scraped the day care program, committed us to a war without our consent, without our consent whored us out to American interests (NORAD, Softwood lumber, Kyoto) and he honestly expects to get a majority. WTF has this buffoon done for Canada? I mean really?
I think I hate this guys as much as I hate Harris.
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
[b]In the weekly NDP email, there was this bit of info: Harpoon has addded gas-guzzling SUVs to his motorcade. [img]frown.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]
Just like George.
"Provinces free to tackle climate, Ottawa says:
In wake of British Columbia's carbon tax, federal government drops its opposition to regional regulation of greenhouse gas emissions"
[url=http://tinyurl.com/2qhlm3]http://tinyurl.com/2qhlm3[/url]
quote:
Faced with British Columbia's groundbreaking new comprehensive carbon tax, Ottawa has reversed its opposition to a piecemeal approach to regulating greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution. Both Environment Minister John Baird and Resource Minister Gary Lunn yesterday declared that each province is free to chart its own course on tackling emissions ...Resource economist Mark Jaccard, a leading advocate of the carbon tax, said B.C.'s "courageous" move will force other jurisdictions to embrace a carbon tax eventually. Mr. Jaccard, a technical adviser to Mr. Campbell on climate action, said B.C.'s tax makes it clear there is an economic price to be paid for battling global warming - something no politician in Canada has been willing to say until now.
"Since 1990, Canada has had six national plans to reduce GHG emissions. With each plan, government told us emissions would fall - but they never did," he said. "When John Baird or [Prime Minister] Stephen Harper says, 'I don't believe in taxes, but I care about the climate' there's a contradiction there. That's not an honest politician. We just got honesty in B.C., and I'm excited about it."
Canadian government 'hiding truth about climate change', report claims
excerpt:
Canada's climate researchers are being muzzled, their funding slashed, research stations closed, findings ignored and advice on the critical issue of the century unsought by Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government, according to a 40-page report by a coalition of 60 non-governmental organisations.
ETA: some of the comments below the article are depressingly familiar - from denialists. It would have been useful to give a source for the figure of 300,000 deaths from climate change.
EU considers easing environmental standards for fuel
excerpt:
OTTAWA - The European Union is considering weakening its proposed environmental standards for fuel in response to a lobbying effort from the Harper government to protect Canada's oilsands, newly released documents have revealed.
A new discussion paper to be debated by a panel this week suggests that European officials will remove restrictions on fuel from the oilsands in its draft legislation, pending "further review."
The standards must still go through a period of consultations and several months of debate prior to adoption or a veto by the European Parliament, but the concerns raised in the meantime by Canadian officials appear to have prompted a change.
Meanwhile, Ontario, Quebec sing different oilsands tune when cash beckons
excerpt:
EDMONTON - After months of publicly denouncing the oilsands for its environmental footprint, the Quebec and Ontario governments are in Alberta this week with entrepreneurs looking to land supplier contracts with companies developing the resource.
The Quebec government asked businesses from that province to participate in the economic mission to Edmonton this week for the National Buyer/Seller Forum - a conference dedicated to oilsands investment - saying the projects in northern Alberta provide la belle province with "good business opportunities."
Ontario has also sent a delegation, including its economic development minister, to work with companies in that province hoping to cash in with oilsands contracts.
The missions come only a few months after Quebec Premier Jean Charest and Ontario's environment minister decried the oilsands during the Copenhagen conference on climate change. The two provinces said they don't want their greenhouse gas cuts contributing the lion's share of national reductions simply to offset rising emissions from the carbon-intensive oilsands.
More than 35 Ontario companies and six regional economic development organizations from that province are in Edmonton with Economic Development Minister Sandra Pupatello.
"When it's good for Alberta, it's good for Ontario, and when it's good for those two, it's good for Canada," Pupatello told conference representatives Tuesday.
Meanwhile, south of the border:
Senate Republicans Introduce Bill To Abolish The EPA
excerpt:
The bill, introduced by Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC), would merge the EPA, which enforces environmental laws, with the Department of Energy, which manages nuclear energy and energy research, into one department.
(not only would it not pass - it would then face a presidential veto)
(I wonder if this type of thing inspires the Harperites?)
Constantly.
I wonder if there is actual contact between Republicans in the US and our Conservatives? I gather the border states and border provinces have daily conversations, but what about at the federal level?
Harper and Charest team up to save the environment:
[url=http://www.financialpost.com/news/Quebec+Ottawa+sign+deal+over+stake/449..., Ottawa sign deal over oil, gas stake[/url]
Premier Jean Charest described as “historic” the agreement Thursday between Quebec and the federal government, clearing the way for the development of Quebec’s offshore oil and gas resources in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.[...]
Old Harry may contain up to two billion barrels of oil, or five trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
Then-Quebec environment minister Thomas Mulcair imposed a moratorium on seismic testing and drilling in Quebec’s portion of the Gulf until 2012. Mr. Charest indicated the moratorium would run its course.
... and in other news, Charest convincingly pleads not guilty to a charge of selling his soul to the billionaires:
[url=http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/decision-canada/Charest+downplays+Wi... downplays WikiLeaks cable on Power Corp. influence[/url]
Premier Jean Charest downplayed on Wednesday a WikiLeaks cable suggesting Power Corp. of Canada may have leaned on him to stop criticizing the federal government’s approach to global warming at the December 2009 climate-change summit in Copenhagen.
That WikiLeaks link is new to me, but I posted the Ottawa/Quebec agreement in an earlier thread. I was hoping you were giving us an update, dear friend! You're slipping. 
Early 2012 shattered U.S. records for heat, worrying meteorologists
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1158442--early-2012-shattered-...
The first quarter of 2012 broke the January-March record by 1.4 degrees. Usually records are broken by just one- or two-tenths of a degree. U.S. temperature records date to 1895.
The atypical heat goes back even further. The U.S. winter of 2010-2011 was slightly cooler than normal and one of the snowiest in recent years, but after that things started heating up. The summer of 2011 was the second warmest summer on record.
The winter that just ended, which in some places was called the year without winter, was the fourth warmest on record. Since last April, it’s been the hottest 12-month stretch on record, Crouch said.
But the month where the warmth turned especially weird was March.
Normally, March averages 5.8 degrees Celsius across the country. This year, the average was 10.8, which is closer to the average for April. Only one other time — in January 2006 — was the country as a whole that much hotter than normal for an entire month.
The “icebox of America,” International Falls, Minn., saw temperatures in the early 20s for five days in March.
In March, at least 7,775 weather stations across the nation broke daily high temperature records and another 7,517 broke records for night-time heat. Combined, that’s more high temperature records broken in one month than ever before, Crouch said.
“When you look at what’s happened in March this year, it’s beyond unbelievable,” said University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver.
NOAA climate scientist Gabriel Vecchi compared the increase in weather extremes to baseball players on steroids: You can’t say an individual homer is because of steroids, but they are hit more often and the long-held records for home runs fall.
They seem to be falling far more often because of global warming, said NASA top climate scientist James Hansen. In a paper he submitted to the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and posted on a physics research archive, Hansen shows that heat extremes aren’t just increasing but happening far more often than scientists thought.
What used to be a 1-in-400 hot temperature record is now a 1 in 10 occurrence, essentially 40 times more likely, said Hansen. The warmth in March is an ideal illustration of this, said Hansen.
