Comment Archives: stories: News: Sustainable City
Re: “Sustainable news”
What? Sustainable City isn't going to be sustained?
Is the phrase "ghettoized into one column" one of those ways of making something good sound bad? A spin. Marketing terminology.
Similar expressions abound from some lips making bad situations sound good. Like Steven and Peter with their "Restart Button" instead of saying "We severely fucked the whole thing up and it's all been a tremendous waste of taxpayers money and time and now we need to start the whole damn thing over again from the beginning."
Well, get some big knobby tires on that V-8 SUV Rover so the "roving environmental reporter" can power through the HRM bio-sludge to get to the almighty truth. (and wear a protective mask and suit, that shit's lethal)
Good luck CB!!
Re: “Sustainable news”
Best of luck Chris in your new role. Looking forward to the new roving environmental reporter as well.
Re: “Sustainable news”
Always enjoyed your "Sustainable City" column. Not sure about the "roving reporter" thing but good luck in your new role Chris.
Re: “Acid river”
How do you spell snob?
Is it "Enviro157"?
Thanks to hrmwt for bringing that topic up.
Thanks to the snob for elaborating.
Re: “Acid river”
Fantastic, a real story on real pollution. Unfortunately Claire goes rogue near the end with the ever present "global warming" scare. Well, maybe Claire and others might be interested in what was leaked to the internet today. A draft copy of the 2013 IPCC WR5 Climate Change update. This is document is the "bible" of climate change. This is where the Governments, green groups, and left wing media get their cue from to guide them in promoting this CO2 debacle. Its considered the gold standard of climate science. It states there is no discernible trends in droughts, floods, hurricanes etc due to human activities. It shows decades of computer models have been wrong based on real observations. It talks about the sun...imagine that, the sun having a impact on earths climate....it talks about aerosals, which are carbon particles and what they don't know about them in the atmosphere, it talks about clouds and how they don't know much about them...but they do know they cool. The person who leaked the draft document is a reviewer in the IPCC for the up coming 2013 assessment. His reason is the concern that the final draft in 2013 will have had a lot of this data removed. His reason is valid. There have been numerous scientist contributors to this IPCC "bible" since 1990 that have quit because their work was omitted or their comments were not included in the final draft. Who does this? Non-scientist political IPCC members and IPCC politicized scientists from many countries around the world give the final approval of this IPCC document. Theres even reason to believe that activists representing some Green groups influence the final draft document from the IPCC. Sad....and scary considering the UN wants $100 Billion yr to fight climate change. Imagine what that money could do for rivers, forests, lakes, etc.
Re: “Acid river”
Maybe you should understand the water treatment process before commenting on Stellarton's water quality. The "nasty cancer causing stuff" as you call it are DPBs, Disinfection Byproducts, a result of adding chlorine and other disinfectants to drinking water to make it safe for human consumption. Almost all water treatment processes produce some DPBs, though the levels in the Stellarton do exceed guideline levels any health risk is minimal. The most concerning DPB is THM, a byproduct of chlorine breaking down organic material in the water, but THMs and DPBs in general are only of concern if ingested in large quantities over a long period of time, and can be easily removed with a household carbon or charcoal filter.
So please do your research before talking about something you don't understand.
Re: “Acid river”
Speaking of poor quality water, have you heard of the residents in Stellarton? Apparently they've been drinking water for the last couple years with all sorts of nasty cancer causing stuff in it. Known for years and quick to quiet in their tight lipped boys club City Council.
Re: “Mobile home”
The new location is 2500 Creighton Street.
A couple of years ago it was listed for sale on MLS at $75,000 and there was no interest. It was for sale for 3 or more years and a big 'For sale' sign with contact details didn't attract any buyer.
Here are is the PVSC assessment record for the 2,050 sq ft lot :
Year Market Value Assessment
2012 $81,300
2011 $77,400
2010 $64,500
2009 $63,300
2008 $59,100
2007 $49,300
2006 $42,600
2005 $57,100
2004 $51,900
2003 $57,800
2002 $54,700
2001 $54,300
Re: “Land grab”
raisin,
The BBC email, if legit, only confirms my own experience in discussing the science of climate change in online forums: "constantly being savaged by the loonies" sums it up perfectly.
Wikileaks has obtained and released information that has embarrassed a few governments. Some of these have claimed that Wikileaks has endangered their national security.
The CRU emails, on the other hand, contain nothing, nada, zip that would invalidate the body of evidence for global warming and it doesn't matter how much 'spin' or creative editing is applied to the material. The science is sound.
Re: “Land grab”
Scientific bodies? You must mean the four quickly arranged separate reviews by panels made up of "independent"experts that were carefully vetted to ensure they had no connections to the University, the Scientists, or any Green or CO2 related companies or projects. lol
...and they called only one person to testify, Phil Jones, the suspended head of the Climate research Unit at the University.
The Media moved on because their in the emails. Heres the BBC joking with the same Phil Jones about them having to at least appear impartial.
date: Wed Dec 8 08:25:30 2004
from: Phil Jones
subject: RE: something on new online.
to: “Alex Kirby”
At 17:27 07/12/2004, you wrote:
Yes, glad you stopped this — I was sent it too, and decided to
spike it without more ado as pure stream-of-consciousness rubbish. I can well understand your unhappiness at our running the other piece. But we are constantly being savaged by the loonies for not giving them any coverage at all, especially as you say with the COP in the offing, and being the objective impartial (ho ho) BBC that we are, there is an expectation in some quarters that we will every now and then let them
say something. I hope though that the weight of our coverage makes it clear that we think they are talking through their hats.
So the Wikileak hacked emails of US Government employee's and politicians is good and the hacked emails, assuming it was not a insider, from a Government funded Climate Research Unit is bad. Okay...
Re: “Land grab”
raisin,
The information at your link www.africareview.com returned the message "The Requested Resource is No Longer Available". The New York Times also returned the message "Page Not Found".
Do you have anything more recent?
Your reference to "Climategate emails" must be a reference to the hacking of computers in the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in 2009 and the subsequent media hype.
There was/is no 'scientific conspiracy' to fudge the data with regard to climate change. The term "Climategate" was coined by critics of climate science and accepted by a gullible media. Those critics who claim that the hacked emails reveal a vast conspiracy on the part of climate researchers are hallucinating. Numerous scientific bodies (oh no! more scientists!) reviewed the content of the emails and found no evidence of professional misconduct or 'fudging' of the data. Unfortunately, the media had already moved on and spent little time (if any) on correcting the impression left with the general public that "something was wrong with the data".
Aside from there being "no smoke" and "no fire" in the U of East Anglia emails, many observers think that the timing of the release of the hacked emails (just prior to the Copenhagen Conference in 2009 and another repeat just prior to the Durban Conference in 2011) and the misrepresentation of their contents was an attempt to derail further discussion of international agreements to tackle climate change.
Re: “Land grab”
http://www.africareview.com/Special+Report…
The 2012 drought was not the worst in U.S recorded history. The 1930's were worse.
Climate experts lol
There were no hurricanes that hit the U.S mainland between 2005 and 2012. 1955/57 there 6 hurricanes that landed on just the East coast. What does that mean? Galveston Texa's was destroyed in 1900 by a extremely powerful hurricane. The storm then moved north towards the Great lakes and on to New York with winds at 60 mph. It then went up to Newfoundland and sunk a lot of the fishing fleet. Pretty freaky storm....and there have been lots of them.
New York 1821....hurricane....like Sandy, 12/13 ft storm surge...at low tide, no full moon.
Dollars damage does not determine the severity of a storm. The cities are getting bigger, more people are moving to water frontage etc.
Humans are changing the climate but CO2 is not the major issue. There has been no measureable Global warming in 15 yrs. The Climategate emails released onto the internet. The emails are from your "climate experts" and the IPCC.
"What would they do to us if they found out that climate change is mainly multi-decadal natural fluctuations as most of the evidence shows."
"What would the scientific community say if we told them theres been no warming since 98"
"we know the science is week, but its the policy thats important"
" we know the science is being used for political purposes"
Re: “Land grab”
raisin,
I think you are misrepresenting the U.N.'s position on land ownership. When some large food corporation 'owns' 10,000 hectares of agricultural land in a developing country, would you call that "individual ownership"? Your criticisms may also be invalid in locations where the tradition has been communal ownership of land resources.
Furthermore, concerted international efforts to reduce human greenhouse gas emissions (currently almost non-existent considering the magnitude of the threat) will inevitably be imperfect at first. If you have a link to information regarding the use of local militias to remove residents from their land to further a CO2 credit trading scheme I'd be interested in reading it.
The climate change that experts have been warning us about for more than two decades is upon us. It's going to get worse - just how much worse depends on what we do collectively to deal with the threat. Do nothing and events like Hurricane Sandy and the worst drought in recorded U.S. history (this year) will seem like "the good old days".
Re: “Land grab”
...and its all done with the strong approval of the UN, of which most of the readers of this column are supporters of. The UN does not believe an individual should be allowed to own a piece of earth. They do not believe in individual home ownership. There was a conference and resolution regarding this...I think 1976 in Vancouver. The International Council of Environmental Communities is the result. Halifax belongs to them. This group is part of whats called Agenda 21...which is a UN program. The Clinton's, the Gates, and the other 99% belong to it. Agenda 21 is about sustainable development..otherwards, what we have to do in order to sustain them.
The land that's being exploited for our use involves a lot of "Green" commodities like Eucalyptus tree's. The UN, through another of its clubs, the IPCC or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, promotes this and has schemes that pay CO2 credits to the developers because the genetically engineered Eucalyptus grows so fast and use so much CO2. Same goes for the Palm oil. A lot of the time the land is not even bought. A local Militia is used to just remove everyone.
Re: “Land grab”
A lot of economists and business people will insist that the advent of a global market in agricultural commodities is an unqualified 'good' and further that this global market means increased food security for all players. But as others like Joan Baxter have known for years, the reality is significantly different.
The reality is that food corporations support and, in fact, insist upon a global agricultural commodities market because it enables them to make a lot of money. That is the beginning and the end of the story as far as they're concerned. Concepts such as 'fairness' and 'food security' and 'feeding the hungry' don't enter into the equation in any way, shape or form. By definition food corporations exclude such motivations.
It doesn't even carry the cynical justification that it's either "us or them", in other words there is no security component to 'our' use of 'their' land. If things were structured differently and global food corporations did not have such access to arable land in developing countries, 'we' wouldn't 'go without'. We may or may not notice a difference on the dinner table, but the owners of capital would notice a definite difference in their already bloated profit margins.
Imperialism never died. It just got a name change.
Re: “Land grab”
To sample/plagiarize Hilaire Belloc:
"Whatever happens, we have got
the Predator Drone. And they have not.
http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs51/f/2009/320…
| ||||||
|
Guides
- Home |
- Dating |
- Bitch |
- News |
- Music |
- Movies |
- Dining |
- Arts |
- Opinion |
-
Best Of
| - FAQ |
- Halifax Free Classifieds |
- Jobs |
- Housing |
- For Sale |
- Classes |
- Bulletin Board |
- Health, Beauty |
- Services |
- Real Estate |
- Wanted
- About Us |
- Our Staff |
- Contact Us |
- Advertise |
- Work With Us |
- Send us a Tip |
- Privacy Policy |
- Comments Policy |
-
RSS Feeds
|
- Archives
Re: “Sustainable news”
Hmmm, your column was one of the few reasons I actually read The Coast. Too bad. Best wishes in your new endeavours.