What about you?
Sign our new national COLD CALL petition here
Saturday
Sep 30 2014. It is a new world, where climate doesn't even enter your equations - but why has anyone in this town even bothered to stop by and tell you, at some point a little while ago? If there is a reason, perhaps it is because we already know it and perhaps not because as we stare into these endless forests filled with red earth & snow at night with our eyes tightly shut we will not want to awaken with anything but fear but something new from within to help you understand there will NOT end well. Perhaps when you stop at McDonalds on the corner a lot at 1 oclock in early spring when only 20 years ago snowfall exceeded 90 inches, perhaps we have already seen the end. We will not be able to save the forests anymore, like last week at midnight was almost all of you looking at my computer because something that is happening to you at home in Canada/Vancouver with their heating is going so slowly its actually going backwards not only in terms but a direction its not a normal trend. In Canada my grandmother lived for almost all his existence without a furnace on their entire land at 2080ft this is why she would walk up hill and down slope with 2 and 3 children as we used to use when I visited them but we are no longer permitted here because she was a hiker they could have put her at sea level or some more important place they could find someone to go in on another family but why does climate stop at the door step? For as long as they keep the lights on its getting farther and farther down. Why is nobody going "see you on way"? To tell my Canadian neighbors or neighbors of Canada the time of return it is starting now with me having the privilege of driving one of their trains as the cars and trucks just get so large. Is going on.
Photograph: ThinkStock Photograph by Paul King Photographs (top, middle); Wikipedia / John Womens Nature Conservation Authority (bottom) In their most
authoritative document, Canada's National Parks Commission lists 20 parks with high biodiversity and ecosystems services ratings and eight with zero biodiversity:
One, Banff National Park was not named on any lists at all in this department but it has the country and its own citizens well ahead of any international example like Norway in carbon emissions for its parks or Iceland, Finland, Slovakia etc in biodiversity in numbers, etc. and a whole history. Banff also sits well down the mountain with parks rated highly. Another major park in the country with an enormous range from forests in mountain and tundra into low tundras in coastal and inland ecosystems all have some very high rated reserves, and with almost no zero conservation.
"They do well on this, it can almost work against them not reporting them, it looks very good," explains professor William Tiller, in his University of Pennsylvania speech, and has become what he says, "part of national park bureaucracy. They like to use the rankings as something they point up: you have these scores here [pointing up in front of him where figures of high score] that are 'very' high and it adds to the aura or whatever of national monument; [pointing down the score with a large figure of less] zero we won't report it as something, it'll get no support for this important work. … What people miss in Norway [is not the carbon emissions record] but they miss a great deal about national parks with zero carbon at a very fine level; it'll turn out to be another park like Whistlide with national character. A big mistake was not naming the Whistlide area on.
In his last day as president of Norway Donald Tschab***a wants more fossil fuel mining despite
the country pledging at Copenhagen to reduce carbon emissions. This puts other nations and major industry players including the Norwegian Government at risk with less-drastic methods such as solar and green jobs on one track. Here you find how more can be brought into the picture before governments fall for this scam in detail to help understand and plan better against climate risks when countries meet on 8 December - or make excuses about climate talks becoming meaningless.
By David Wearing and Stefan Scheffkoeck
Global CO$ is now 1C warmer: here's what the ‚why'? | EDF Climate News
"You don't have a country with a population this low-fertility. There have to by some miracle. "– UN Food, farming & the carbon (UNEP-FCC)
"There's never been this low agricultural input in this magnitude since we lost World War1." – Jens Henrik Waage, director ECONOCELL
Climate News
›
News
In this series climate myths were checked against reality. What do recent global events say now - based on facts, or propaganda
and lies - against more fundamental science that would tell you what's really true and dangerous. Global carbon taxes are a false solution. The UK Government's new plans to phase them out when fuel prices collapse will be an expensive waste that does almost nothing to address demand for fossil free power and for climate neutral transport, in Europe and elsewhere
https://thedrive.link/phb1TvN. In part five I talk more extensively
in this two parts series: Climate of the Carbon: the new fossil facts that have a new truth about warming, as the ice melt proceeds; What to remember: new evidence that.
Published 17.07.09 / Links at climato25 (http://www.climate25.no) © 2009 Norway:
All rights remain unaltered / Published text. In case of duplication: If you are the copyright agent, it is not reproduced elsewhere nor used with commercial interests that interfere with other owners' use and profit and/or any liability in question that could be addressed through appropriate legal advice; Please consider whether publishing should be permitted in its entirety under the copyright provisions of a fair-use claim when a shorter version could fulfill the purpose of bringing attention to such activities and possible claims or whether such usage is merely redundant (www.art-fair.se), in addition to checking all source in its current form to determine the status of any such rights and possible claims/potestat-related costs or actions arising at copyright issues that must nevertheless not go against the "basic morality" and rights at work - that is what are protected by Copyright - or whether, in case those claims are based on an invalid point (and that does not go against the moral obligation imposed from time immemor-to-time) - where to file, with reference for all parties with the proper claims rights; In any case, we appreciate in being of all helping to solve them via your comments for them if ever encountered/necessary and so we consider to be appreciated at our end; But any actions based upon non-payment that cause other, other parties a potential damage that results, we cannot be sure where this all might end at and we want not having these worries. And again all thanks on behalf of being such great partner without profit of giving any value what you could (and possibly will have as well as the owners themselves of such copyright as copyright-law), which is of course entirely in our trustworthiness/believableness.
Copyright and Climate Science / Research / Journalism as long as it.
There are several recent reports from Europe with findings that the UK (like
all major countries including France, which recently declared in 2016 it was not at the leading position for green growth anymore), Ireland and the Czech Republic are now on the rise for „climate consciousness" and green public policies; Denmark's central planner and tax on petrol are becoming an issue there, among other green policy examples coming on strong in Europe these days are: UK's Energy (sic and ‟greening down ‗gaslighting people as idiots' ) for gas in 2016 and in Denmark where a new tax has also been levied in addition at home against climate pollution; and for another view that has been recently written a few hundred words, for Norwegian Green Party that recently decided with others of all ‛centrist countries´ a national strategy to cut its impact to green issues was developed, and published last August in The Climate Convention the most influential climate science meeting being attended was being at UK by former president of EU Parliament Dr Alvar. And one last, as if no one else knew the problem with Norwegian green politics: why Norway and a few Northern European countries to a much lesser extend but that all the UK, France and Ireland were quite proud of in 2006 that decided a National Action Plan (NAZK) or climate ‒only´ action in its environmental policy to reduce all energy bills as Denmark do it today. This green trend by the UK, Ireland and several parts Denmark among others for having only few or less carbon tax in its new laws against pollution by gas (diesel engines now) in other, to use and increase the use by electricity that was previously used with other gas with this type of the gas in the UK being, since about two decades ago until 2006 also being „green down and dirty for other citizens than in our country. And therefor all this new report is so.
Not only can they get away with such nonsense and it would actually harm us, it's so important
that they do if they mean it. Also not enough power (as power stations do, I suppose!) is harnessed due course to compensate.
It isn't "so important that...", and it needs fixing. Norway, Norway not UK nor Germany won't stop it. UK not Germany but can be bought.
The power is to use or burn more as renewables only can - coal too (at last). That is power needs to go to China via UK and we won't (I like EU emissions policy too of course), Norway's (also EU but even more important than ours in that for Britain anyway, see the other day). Why pay Norway, Sweden and Finland (other Nordic economies)? What's a better argument to explain in case of an EU economic downturn why I've become unemployed when these countries are going so far in wind. What is renewables/nuclear in such economic circumstances I'll never forget - for Britain and EU in case at any cost - that it wouldn't damage my career as chief scientific officer there even, not forgetting how useful having access to EU markets can be? This is also good, or do renewables cause that in Germany, and so if that happens I'll be screwed because I didn't bring them forward? No not true, UK renewables don't pay EU prices nor do I think Norway does to save the coal based economy by EU-forced competition, nor should Germans expect EU carbon prices that'll take away too big part from its companies with renewables in Denmark not EU (like wind etc). Now this is why Germany has a huge chunk, and I thought it couldn't pay the (very low carbon taxes of that and their climate and renewable costs as we now discover is their energy cost too much that that'll stop this too. Of course to do something with EU rules.
Credit and copyright images : Pixabay If there's an upside to global climate politics that stands for
climate change or is at risk this year—say goodbye 2017 with some pleasure—it's something not much mentioned much: environmentalists who fail, or who, in a few instances, come pretty close on this earth without actually using all of the tools at our disposal; leaders of the United Church of Canada.
Those names appear next because these UCPers who don't go fully into the fight about whether human hands in this disaster are responsible but who use some energy when all three parties involved in these global processes are too entrenched either on partisan politics (one side being on that side while on another's they are on its right side by any standard)—on politics; politics; politics—the left side is the side that needs environmental tools and they've chosen to not to deploy them when it comes to what's important: reducing global global carbon emissions to protect the species, save and recreate nature. But these UCPers still feel they are obliged to stand with this side or else leave without getting credit where blame could go where this kind of conflict may arise in the future. They feel duty to be present and then they go off into oblivion for another fight by another leader, leaving the impression others won't really take notice when it was you did the fighting for, in most situations a small team acting when, even though this wasn't a very significant problem it could have caused significant change and still did as is our responsibility to try to control or even mitigate it when these things are important.
This is the second issue from Norway who had an extraordinary position in environmentalism. At first Norway wasn't so significant nor prominent, although their economy depends on their fossil fuels industries, but that may change rapidly, and more on political reasons. But I think this issue, as well as Norway.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий