Climate Change: I don't want to talk about it

385 posts / 0 new
Last post
epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

but after listening to the kids themselves well it was nothing as you describe magoo. the kids were knowledgeable and independent like so many kids can be if allowed to be.

When kids parrot something some adults agree with, those adults say "out of the mouths of babes...".

When those same kids want a tattoo, or birthday cake for dinner, or a 12am bedtime, or to eat Tide Pods, the adults say "Sadly, they're but babes..." don't know that they are just parroting. your assuming that magoo.

..adults parrot things all the time. that is not the sum of it. adults can still have independent thought. why discriminate with kids?


My 9.8kWp solar system had now been hooked up to the grid for 3 months now. 

And real disappointing results. It’s only produced half the power as estimated. 

If everyone’s who signed up for the microfit fit program in Ontario having the same problem, better get use to global warming. 

Mr. Magoo

you don't know that they are just parroting

OK.  You can tell us what they're parroting then.

I guess I'm feeling like maybe those 8 year olds didn't really do the research?  Same reason why I don't believe that everyone's 8 year old is totally ready to vote, and why I cannot support Demeny voting.  Or, 8 year olds voting.  On a scale of 0 to 0, how many 8 year olds do you really think would vote differently from their parents?  And how many parents do you think would let their 8 year olds nullify their votes?

why discriminate with kids?

If 8 year olds are sophisticated and informed enough to make political choices, should we allow them to choose their own sexual partner, or why not?  Can they drive a car?  Or why not?  Choose to leave school?  Why not? 

How about just get a tattoo?  It's just a decoration, yes?  So why not? 


epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

you don't know that they are just parroting

OK.  You can tell us what they're parroting then.

I guess I'm feeling like maybe those 8 year olds didn't really do the research?  Same reason why I don't believe that everyone's 8 year old is totally ready to vote, and why I cannot support Demeny voting.  Or, 8 year olds voting.  On a scale of 0 to 0, how many 8 year olds do you really think would vote differently from their parents?  And how many parents do you think would let their 8 year olds nullify their votes?

why discriminate with kids?

If 8 year olds are sophisticated and informed enough to make political choices, should we allow them to choose their own sexual partner, or why not?  Can they drive a car?  Or why not?  Choose to leave school?  Why not? 

How about just get a tattoo?  It's just a decoration, yes?  So why not?'s not just 8 yr olds in the suit but your using them to strengthen your case..isn't that a manipulation? 8 yr old can a see picture of the tarsands and know it is wrong. maybe an adult can convince the 8 yr old that it's for the good. but instinctively the child knows it's wrong. well polution is all around us and kids aren't wearing blinders. do you want yourself or society to deny them the right to pursue that instinct? and this isn't about voting or anything else but what it is.

eta: there i was laying with the lights out and i remember something that may be pertinent to our conversation. i couldn't get to sleep as it kept rolling around. here it is. in vancouver there used to be a queer woman's cafe on broadway. can't remember the name. it was very active in hosting all kinds projects. time i was sitting at a table and i happened to look at an event list that was placed on every table. one event was that of grade 5 & 6 kids were going to be there at a certain time on a certain day to work on their recycling project. i was impressed. this had to be set up in conjunction with the school and or parents. so the kids, as i see it,  were being taught to work together and take responsibility.

..isn't that what those kids in the suit are doing? taking responsibility? 

progressive17 progressive17's picture

The Texas black birds or grackles are swarming human areas. The videos are extraordinary. 


Melting Arctic sea ice may be behind this year’s delayed spring: scientists

Some climatologists suspect the wintry surprises result from a chain of events that start with ice melting from vast stretches of Arctic Ocean.


Canada's climate change efforts are now being internationally ridiculed.  

Canadian emissions creep lower, but not at rate needed to meet targets under Paris accord

The report shows Canada emitted 704 million tonnes in 2016. While that is down 1.4 per cent from the year before, Environmental Defence’s national program manager says the decrease is so small it’s nothing to get excited about.


How NAFTA restricts Canada’s ability to lower carbon emissions

The production, not Canadians’ consumption of oil and gas, is Canada’s largest and fastest growing source of emissions. Carbon taxes weakly address consumption, but ignore the bigger, supply-side problem.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

20,000 Scientists Have Now Signed 'Warning to Humanity'

A chilling research paper warning about the fate of humanity has received 4,500 additional signatures and endorsements from scientists since it was first released last year.

The paper—"World Scientists' Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice"—was published in November 2017 in the journal Bioscience and quickly received the largest-ever formal support by scientists for a journal article with roughly 15,000 signatories from 184 countries.

Today, the article has collected 20,000 expert endorsements and/or co-signatories, and more are encouraged to add their names.

The "Warning" became one of the most widely discussed research papers in the world. It currently ranks 6th out of 9 million papers on the Altmetric scale, which tracks attention to research. It has also inspired pleas from political leaders from Israel to Canada.

The 2017 paper is actually an update to the original version published 25 years ago by the Union of Concerned Scientists. It was signed by 1,700 scientists then, including the majority of living Nobel laureates in the sciences.

The first notice started with this statement: "Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course." It described trends such as the growing hole in the ozone layer, pollution and depletion of freshwater sources, overfishing, deforestation, plummeting wildlife populations, as well as unsustainable rises in greenhouse gas emissions, global temperatures and human population levels....


Birds that can't stand the heat of a warming world are shrinking

Their research adds to a growing body of evidence indicating that numerous plant and animal species are undergoing physical and behavioural changes in response to global warming


Anote's Ark: A documentary of biblical scope tackling climate change

progressive17 progressive17's picture

I read that 5,000 km in an airplane for one passenger destroys 1 square metre of arctic ice forever. So I don't fly, and I don't drive. Life is not bad though!


May 2018 marked 401st month of global temperature exceeding 20th-century average


The oldest and thickest sea ice in the Arctic has started to break up, opening waters north of Greenland that are normally frozen, even in summer.

This phenomenon – which has never been recorded before – has occurred twice this year due to warm winds and a climate-change driven heatwave in the northern hemisphere.

One meteorologist described the loss of ice as “scary”.


 A landmark report from the United Nations’ scientific panel on climate change paints a far more dire picture of the immediate consequences of climate change than previously thought and says that avoiding the damage requires transforming the world economy at a speed and scale that has “no documented historic precedent.”

The report, issued on Monday by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of scientists convened by the United Nations to guide world leaders, describes a world of worsening food shortages and wildfires, and a mass die-off of coral reefs as soon as 2040

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Appeal Court Orders Fast Emission Cuts in Landmark Decision Against Netherlands Government

An appeal court in The Netherlands put “all world governments on notice” this week, upholding a previous, historic legal order that the national government accelerate its plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

“Climate change is a grave danger,” ruled Judge Tan de Sonnaville. “Any postponement of emissions reductions exacerbates the risks of climate change. The Dutch government cannot hide behind other countries’ emissions. It has an independent duty to reduce emissions from its own territory.”

The ruling in The Hague came just a day after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its landmark scenario report on pathways to 1.5°C average global warming, concluding that humanity has just 12 years to cut emissions by 45%. It affirmed a lower court decision in June 2015 that ordered the country to cut its emissions 25% in five years.

With three of those five years gone, the judgement upheld the original target—and the original timing.

“Appeal court judges ruled that the severity and scope of the climate crisis demanded greenhouse gas reductions of at least 25% by 2020—measured against 1990 levels—higher than the 17% drop planned by Mark Rutte’s liberal administration,” The Guardian reports. “The ruling—which was greeted with whoops and cheers in the courtroom—will put wind in the sails of a raft of similar cases being planned around the world, from Norway to New Zealand and from the UK to Uganda.”....

Martin N.

For 200 years pessimists have predicted we’d ruin the planet. They’re still wrong

Opinion: We mark the 50th anniversary of The Population Bomb by explaining why predictions, well, bombed

Fifth, pessimists are also oblivious to the benefits of unlocking wealth from underground materials such as coal, petroleum, natural gas and mineral resources. Using these spares vast quantities of land. It should go without saying that even a small population will have a much greater impact on its environment if it must rely on agriculture for food, energy and fibres, raise animals for food and locomotion, and harvest wild animals for everything from meat to whale oil. By replacing resources previously extracted from the biosphere with resources extracted from below the ground, people have reduced their overall environmental impact while increasing their standard of living.


Pierre Desrochers, a geography professor at the University of Toronto Mississauga, and Joanna Szurmak, a doctoral candidate at York University, are the authors of Population Bombed! Exploding the Link Between Overpopulation and Climate Change. The book will be launched at an event on Oct. 15th in Toronto.


They should launch their book on one of the icebergs from the melting artic.  And the Financial Post is the place to turn to for serious analysis of environmental science.

Martin N.

So, other than your antipathy to the NP, do you hold any doubts as to the scientific rigour of the book?

Maybe all the usual bloviators and assorted hangers on can have a taxpayer funded conference to cobble up a new accord. Said conference in a warm climate with nice beaches and good restaurants, of course.

Why are these climate change conferences never held in Iqualiut or Murmansk?

Putting forward reasonable proposals that stand any chance of success are always decried in favour of idiotic fantasies that have zero chance of success but have unlimited amounts of zealous ardour.



I’m not an environmental scientist or a climatologist.  Apparently, neither is the author of the book.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..from an email

Earlier today, after hearing from hundreds of us, Canada’s Speaker of the House approved a request from three Members of Parliament – Elizabeth May, Guy Caron and Nathaniel Erskine-Smith – to hold an emergency debate on last week’s critical Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on limiting climate change to 1.5ºC. And the debate is happening now! Click here to tune in.


epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..i listened to the emergency debate for about 1.5 hrs. what a waste of time. not once did anyone mention the tarsands, bc lng or pipelines. change will certainly not come from that place.


In case anybody was wondering why Trudeau wasn't there, he was  bs -ing on NAFTA, Saudi, feminism , pipelines and  climate change etc  to a room of international high rollers in Toronto at the Fortune Global Forum.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Utilities have a problem: the public wants 100% renewable energy, and quick

The industry is groping for ways to talk the public down.

Renewable energy is hot. It has incredible momentum, not only in terms of deployment and costs but in terms of public opinion and cultural cachet. To put it simply: Everyone loves renewable energy. It’s cleaner, it’s high-tech, it’s new jobs, it’s the future.

And so more and more big energy customers are demanding the full meal deal: 100 percent renewable energy.

The Sierra Club notes that so far in the US, more than 80 cities, five counties, and two states have committed to 100 percent renewables. Six cities have already hit the target.

The group RE100 tracks 152 private companies across the globe that have committed to 100 percent renewables, including Google, Ikea, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, Coca-Cola, Nike, GM, and, uh, Lego.

The timing of all these targets (and thus their stringency) varies, everywhere from 2020 to 2050, but cumulatively, they are beginning to add up. Even if policymakers never force power utilities to produce renewable energy through mandates, if all the biggest customers demand it, utilities will be mandated to produce it in all but name.

The rapid spread and evident popularity of the 100 percent target has created an alarming situation for power utilities. Suffice to say, while there are some visionary utilities in the country, as an industry, they tend to be extremely small-c conservative.

They do not like the idea of being forced to transition entirely to renewable energy, certainly not in the next 10 to 15 years. For one thing, most of them don’t believe the technology exists to make 100 percent work reliably; they believe that even with lots of storage, variable renewables will need to be balanced out by “dispatchable” power plants like natural gas. For another thing, getting to 100 percent quickly would mean lots of “stranded assets,” i.e., shutting down profitable fossil fuel power plants.

In short, their customers are stampeding in a direction that terrifies them....


Trying to stop renewables is like trying to stop the spread of flush toilets. Not even the fossil fuel industry can stop progress. Fossil fuels will always be used, burned even, for some applications, but more and more applications will be replaced by renewables and not even because of climate change. Burning fossil fuels creates dirty air and dirty messes. We are fed up with smog causing respiratory diseases and black snow  making our winter uglier. 

Various types of renewables can replace various functions and what can't use a substitute can continue using fossil fuels but at a collectively dramatically reduced rate. This will happen because it makes economic sense not just climate change sense. 



epaulo13 wrote:
..from an email

Earlier today, after hearing from hundreds of us, Canada’s Speaker of the House approved a request from three Members of Parliament – Elizabeth May, Guy Caron and Nathaniel Erskine-Smith – to hold an emergency debate on last week’s critical Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on limiting climate change to 1.5ºC. And the debate is happening now! Click here to tune in.

I think I got that email as well.  Thanks for the link.

MPs debate climate change after UN report warns of dire consequences (

Toronto Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith deplored the "wilful blindness" of Ontario Premier Doug Ford, other provincial Conservative leaders and federal Conservatives, who are adamantly opposed to imposing a carbon tax on greenhouse gas emissions.

Every Conservative MP "should be ashamed of themselves," he said.

Guy Caron’s speech:

NDP secures emergency House of Commons debate on devastating IPCC report (

Elizabeth May talks about climate change from 20:08:21 to 20:18:35.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand here today and I acknowledge we are on the traditional territory of the Algonquin peoples. To them I say meegwetch.

I am very honoured to be part of an emergency debate tonight on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. I appreciate the Speaker accepting the arguments I made, which were also made by the hon. member for Beaches—East York and the NDP caucus.

I want to begin by quoting some words. “Humanity is conducting an unintended, uncontrolled, globally pervasive experiment, whose ultimate consequences are second only to global nuclear war.” Those words were the opening sentence of the consensus scientific report from the Toronto conference in June 1988, when this country was in the lead on climate change, working with the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme. The warnings from science were clear then and they remain crystal clear now.

That was in 1988. I have had a ringside seat for the decades during which we could have arrested climate change before our glaciers were melting, before we were losing the Arctic, before our forests were on fire, before we saw draught and climate refugees, and before we had tornadoes in Ottawa. We had a chance in the 1990s and we blew it. We had a chance in the first decade of this century, but every time there has been a warning from scientists, the alarm bell has rung and society has hit the snooze button.

I am increasingly drawn to the conclusion that our biggest problem is the short-term mindset that preoccupies political parties not just in Canada but around the world. Where is the bravery? Where is the courage? There are all those people surrounding every politician saying, “You cannot win an election by telling the public the truth. You cannot tell people they are going to have to stop using an internal combustion engine and leave fossil fuels in the ground. Do you want to tell them that? That is not going to be politically popular.”

If we are grown-ups in this place, then we should face the science clear-eyed with a serious intent that acknowledges we cannot afford to hit the snooze button on this one report because this time the scientists are telling us that 1.5° is far more dangerous than we thought it was. It reminds me of what Al Gore once said, that if we let the climate crisis continue apace, it will feel like a nature walk through the Book of Revelation.

We have allowed greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere to increase to such an extent that we have already changed the chemistry of the atmosphere; we cannot change it back. We are leaving that hospitable period within which human civilization took root. We got up and started walking on two legs, and then became the dominant force on the planet in a geological lifespan. In the blink of an eye, humanity became the dominant force on this planet. We are entering the Anthropocene, where what we do has a bigger effect than anything else on life on earth. In the Anthropocene, now we are being told that we as homo sapiens, the clever species, the smart ones, have at most 10 to 12 years to ensure that we stop greenhouse gas emissions rapidly, ramp up sequestration to protect every forest, and replant as many forests as possible. We will have to do some things besides that too if we want to ensure we hold the global average temperature increase to no more than 1.5°C above what it was before the industrial revolution.

Parts of this report could have been much worse. We know this from those in the IPCC negotiations. Bear in mind that this is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Yes, it is composed of scientists, but they were appointed by government and this is a negotiated document. Pressure from the United States and Saudi Arabia led to removing parts of the report that would have warned us further. If we miss the 1.5° mark, it is bad, and that is in the report, but if we hit 2°, it is much more dangerous. They took out the part about runaway global warning. We do not know when we will hit a tipping point of irreversible self-acceleration where the ultimate consequences are not about bracing for bad weather, but about bracing for millions of species going extinct. Even if humanity can hang on now, can we imagine hanging on to human civilization in a world with a 4°, 5°, 6°, or 7° rise in temperature? The answer is no.

We have one chance, one chance only, within which all the nations on earth agree that we meant what we said in Paris, that we must hold the global average temperature increase to no more than 1.5°. This IPCC special report contains good news because it says we can do it. It says there are no physical, geological or geochemical conditions of planetary existence, technical or economic, that will prevent us from achieving the goal of protecting our children’s future, not future generations in the hypothetical, the children who are here now. I am talking about the grandchildren I tuck into bed at night, those children, not hypothetical children. All of us know those children. They are our children. We have one chance to ensure that in their natural lifespan they enjoy a hospitable biosphere that has sustained humanity since we first got up and walked on two legs.

The issue tonight is not to debate Canada’s current carbon plan, Canada’s current climate plan. This is not a status quo debate. We should not be scoring political points because one party did this and another party did that. We should be here as humanity, human beings, elected people for our constituencies who know full well that if we do not change what we are doing as a species, we will face an unthinkable world. The good news is we still have a chance to save ourselves.

I increasingly am drawn to thinking about the five days in May 1940 when Winston Churchill was surrounded by people, the Lord Halifaxes and the Chamberlains, who said, “Face the facts. We cannot not defend this island. The Nazis are invading. Our entire army is stranded at Dunkirk. There are 300,000 men, and we cannot get them off because there is no way.” They sat and surrendered. This is the moment when real political leadership steps up. This is when we need our Prime Minister to go to the negotiations in Poland, or to dispatch the Minister of Environment to the negotiations in Poland, and say, “We are stepping up. We are going to rescue everybody. We are going to be the heroes in our own story. We are going to adopt what the IPCC says we must do: 45% reductions by 2030.” Churchill of course, surrounded by naysayers, thought up a miracle, one that is clearly undoable. He asked, “How many civilian boats are there in Dover? We could get those civilians to cross the English channel and rescue over 300,000 men.” Really? It was hardly plausible.

In this time and age we need to face the facts just as squarely. We need to tell Canadians that we have hope, to not despair or think it is too late. They should not turn away from the IPCC reports. They should not be afraid because we cannot breathe in British Columbia in the summer because of forest fires. They should not give up. We will rally and marshal every small town, every big city, every Canadian group, rotary clubs, church groups, and we will tell those naysayers who think that climate change is about a cash grab that they are in the way of our future and that they must get out of the way.

We also sadly must say to our own Minister of Environment that it is not true that we cannot change our target for five years. The Paris Agreement says clearly that any country can replace its own target anytime. The IPCC report has said to us as a country that our target is approximately 50% too little. We need to do twice as much. I know that is hard, but to save the lives of our children, what would we not do? Why will we not rally around the call that we go to COP24 and say we are not going to wait five years? It is an unthinkable thing what the minister has said to us. She said we are going to wait until 2023. “Read between the lines,” is what she just said. We must go to the next climate negotiation as leaders in the world with the target assigned us of totals we must have. Then we must stand up and challenge the others by asking where is their target, where is their goal, because we are not prepared to tell our children we are a failed species. We are not going to do that because we are responsible human beings. We are Canadian parliamentarians and together we can achieve the pathway that has been put before us by world science.

Time is not on our side. History may not be on our side, but by God, we better be on our side. We better grab this chance and make it real.


Extinction Rebellion Says It's Time To Move Beyond Mass Marches and Petitions

"...Extinction Rebellion now plans to launch a 'rebellion' on Oct 31, described as 'a non-violent uprising against the criminal inaction by the British government on the climate crisis', and to hold actions in the UK in November. It then wants to go global in March 2019..."

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

At the Just Transition being held on Oct 27-28th in Regina, Michelle Brass of Indigenous Climate Action and Alex Wilson of Idle No More and One House Many Nations will presenting a Decolonizing the Transition. This valuable event is free but also requires online registration, which you can do right here:

For information about the full day schedule and list of presentations, click on this link:



Heres the problem with so called progressives such as Elizabeth May, they just go on and on complaining. I read that address you posted and no where does she actually forward any energy saving proposals. Such as free public transit. Or proposing grants for small scale power generation systems. How about supporting programs to help municipalities modify zoning to expand energy efficiency condo hi rise housing development? Now maybe she has made such proposals???

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Tackling 'Urgency and Scale" of Crisis, Oakland, Calif. Declares Climate Emergency


The "Declaration of a Climate Emergency and Requesting Regional Collaboration on an Immediate Just Transition and Emergency Mobilization Effort to Restore a Safe Climate" resolution commits the city to:  an "urgent climate mobilization" to slash emissions, moving towards zero net emissions; building resilience strategies for the coming climate impacts; a just transition, making vulnerable communities central to such a shift; and calling on other states, the federal government, and other nations to make a similar mobilization towards climate action and a just transition.

In a letter to city council members on Tuesday, local organizational leaders including Miller, as well as Greg Jackson of Sustainable Economies Law Center, Miya Yoshitani of the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, and Bonnie Borucki of Transition Berkeley, and Kemba Shakur of Urban Releaf, noted that climate emergency resolutions have already been in the California cities of Richmond and Berkeley passed and wrote that the measure before the Oakland city council  "matches the urgency and scale of the ecological, economic and climate crisis that we face."

"At this time in history," they wrote, "a livable future for any of our children is far from guaranteed. We must do everything in our power today to create a safe, just, and healthy world for ourselves, for our children, and for future generations."

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Extinction Rebellion Canadian Launch, Vancouver

Saturday, November 17, 2018 at 12 PM

Robson Square
800 Robson Street, Vancouver

Come join the launch of Extinction Rebellion XR in Vancouver on Nov. 17th @ High Noon in solidarity with UK and other global events happening on the same day. We will be assembling on the steps of the Art Gallery (Robson Side) Robson Square, Vancouver.

To date, nothing we have done has got the leaders we do need to up the game.

The organizers in UK have asked local organizers to host global events in solidarity with them on this date, Nov. 17th. This event will give information on how to get involved to plan for a massive event happening around the world in March, 2019. We will have speakers and handouts, it will be a way to connect with others who want to get involved in saving the planet and ourselves!

We understand to have a successful direct action we need to be strategic and well organized, this event will NOT entail any direct action that would get anyone arrested, not yet..... :)


Today the House of Commons is debating a motion on the health of our economy. When asked a question, straight up, about if she accepts that climate change is a threat, Conservative MP replies with debunked misinformation that Australia's wild fires were set off by hundreds of arsonists. Yep, that's the kind of "serious" stuff we get in the House these days


If there is an upshot to the coronavirus crisis, it is that carbon emissions will drop. Will they drop enough to represent a year-to-year decline?


May and Blanchet Declare the Oilpatch 'Dead'. Warn Ottawa Against Finacial Supports

"My heart bleeds for people who believe the sector is going to come back,' May told reporters Wednesday. 'Oil is dead..."