Does Earth Hour actually help the environment? Fri, March 25, 2011
Do you plan on sitting in the dark this Saturday night?
Around the world, people will make the symbolic gesture of showing they support a cleaner world and lower-carbon lifestyle by raising their carbon output.
Earth Hour, started in 2007, encourages people to show their support for the planet by turning their lights off and enjoying the world by candlelight. The problem, of course, is for most Canadians that means turning off a low-carbon energy source and burning pure fossil fuels.
The absurdity is likely lost on most professional environmentalists.
Yes cities get money, every taxpayer in Canada pays for it, it's the way our system works.
The government takes your money then decides how to spend it for you.
So we get government subsidized sports in the same city that has a huge homeless problem and people are dying because of the doctor shortage. But hey, we gotta put on a sports show for the world!
Not a decision I'd choose to make, but nobody holds the government accountable for spending OUR money. If we dare have a government that says "we don't really need all this money we took, so we'll cut back how much we take." People complain about that too.
Matt, 2008-02-26 23:15:11
Ever heard of kinzian economics Tweety. Of course not. You would then understand. Since he is touted as a genius what does thast make you?
Matt there are many costs we don't capture, we are slowly doing that. For everything you buy, there is a disposal cost that should be tacked on at purchase (you will be disposing of it) and its the only chance you get to charge it because people don't want to pay when they are done and will just abandon. Gas burns up and hurts the environment and takes money to clean up, we don't pay that cost and always assumed the world was huge and it can handle it. Not true any more.
200hp electric motor 30 lbs
200 hp gas engine 600 lbs including needed transmission.
Batteries are not part of the motor, they are the weight problem though.
Tweety now you start off on another tangent with taxes, typical of you.
The true cost of something is paying for everything your choice costs.
A new house being built also includes the price of nature destoyed to build it which we don't charge for meaning less oxygen for everyone in the world, less living space for those animals you don't want hunted. If its far from work, the road needed to be guilt and maintained for you to go to work. The polution you will expell getting to work.
Why should people who walk in the city to work breath in your SUV fumes for free?
Ya taxes suck but the more something costs, the less likely you will choose to do it and thats a fact.
I know you have a tough time with simple concepts tweety.
wayne, 2008-02-26 20:55:43
Recent polls suggest Canadians want taxes reduced. British Columbia's Liberal government seems not to be reading such feedback and was more interested in making international headlines with a precedent setting Carbon Tax. ... http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2008/02/carbon-tax-in-bc.html
It become difficult to fully grasp a government's reasoning when the principal reason given for a tax is "to fight climate change." The explanation might have made more sense if it had argued for clean air, but climate change? This comes as British Columbians are paying $1.20 to over $1.40 per litre for gas.
The serious economic downturn sweeping across America and exhausting the U.S. consumer is absolutely on its way to Canada, and will pass through its Northern border without slowing for customs. Pretending otherwise is frivolous and dangerous. It is time to tighten the belt and save. Each penny is going to count.
James Raider, 2008-02-26 20:31:12
wayne,
And what is the "true cost" of their choice?
While there are some "costs" of living outside the city there are also substantial costs to the city lifestyle that we're not capturing either.
Matt, 2008-02-26 18:11:16
wayne,
The power to weight ratio of electric motors including the power supply is horrible.
The biggest weakness with electric vehicles is heavy and expensive batteries.
Matt, 2008-02-26 17:15:19
And OH.
wayne also says..
"And no every person isn't to live in the city but they should pay the true cost of their choice"
OH??
Every single tax payer in BC has their taxes go towards building a new skytrain route.
Every single taxpayer in BC pays to improve the sea to sky Highway so people from the Lowere mainland can get to Whistler easier
Every single taxpayer in BC paid for the Coquihalla highway so lowere mainlanders can get away on their vacations easier.
Every single tax payer in BC is paying for the wasteful 2010 Olympics.
The vast majority of people living in the interior and the North of BC get no benifits at all from those thingsbut have to pay equally.
Is that the true cost of their choice.
And whats with this CHOICE idiocy again?
People who dont live in Vancouver all CHOSE not to live in Vancouver?
You are one strange old man
No wonder you are so unhealthy
EH?
tweetypie, 2008-02-26 16:44:50
It is in our power to reduce fossil fuel significantly right now. I am not an "envromentalist" but do know we have to cut back and I do my little part. I ride my bike where possible, going to the corner store to get milk for example, I have a push mower that cuts the grass very nicely and doesn't take that much more effort to push then a gas since the energy used to push the weight of a gas is used to turn the blades or a reel mower. By the way I am 50 years old and this has helped me to stay in good shape for my age which reduces the pressure on the health system. Then there is the kids who are suppose to be educated in this "save the planet" generation. When I went to school the bike racks were full and very few got a ride. Now, during fair weather, the bike racks are empty and the streets near the schools are clogged with parents dropping off the kids which could easily walk. If a kid wants to rent a game they get a ride to the mall or game rental shop. They should be made to walk, it saves gas and gives them much needed exercise. Don't give me this bunk of how dangerous it is in neighbourhoods. Yes there are some bade neighbourhoods but most are very safe. If my generation wanted to go to the mall or show we had to walk or bike. Then there is our driving practises. From my own personal experience I know that if you make your top speed 100kph instead of 120 you save anywhere from 5-15% in fuel and is much safer and doesn't make that much difference in time to get where you are going. If you are in the city, travel during the off times (when you can) so you don't idle in traffic.
This is all so simple and if everyone did this I bet the fossil fuel consumption would drop 10%. But no we are a spoiled bunch and will keep doing what we are doing. Maybe the government should give strong tax incentives for riding your bike and using reel mowers? Or else a speeding ticket should also include a "waste of energy" addition of $50.00.
Until technology catches up with what we need to do there are options, just to bad most people decide not to use them.
Redneck Larry
Larry H, 2008-02-26 16:40:01
Yea whatever wayne, you are stuttering and not making any sense
I mean really, does this make any sense to anyone?
"You say rural people will be penalized for driving farther then say they live where they do because thats where their job is, so then they aren't penalized more are they"
You also sound just like GW..
""You know, when you give a man more money in his pocket -- in this case, a woman more money in her pocket to expand a business, it -- they build new buildings. And when somebody builds a new building somebody has got to come and build the building. And when the building expanded it prevented additional opportunities for people to work." --George W. Bush, Lancaster, Pa., Oct. 3, 2007"
EH??????????????
tweetypie, 2008-02-26 16:37:31
And no every person isn't to live in the city but they should pay the true cost of their choice and currently no one pays for the true cost of the extra pollution. and that is a cost. we just all live on credit that our children will pay for.
wayne, 2008-02-26 15:28:01
Tweety your the idiot
What i quoted is an economic model that has been around for over 100 years that is used as a guideline to all financial decisions and is where we have slowly been headed for the last 100 years.
Hey tweety if they are close to their work that is not in the city, they won't be driving much then will they. You don't even realize when you contradict yourself.
You say rural people will be penalized for driving farther then say they live where they do because thats where their job is, so then they aren't penalized more are they.
You are the king of circular arguements.
By the way i work for the city of hamilton in Development. These arethe things that we have in studies. the trade off to not living in the city and living in suburbs are bigger, cheaper houses that have to have natural environment destroyed to build, expensive roads for the commute and higher polution levels do to more traffic.
Does Earth Hour actually help the environment? 
Yes cities get money, every taxpayer in Canada pays for it, it's the way our system works.
The government takes your money then decides how to spend it for you.
So we get government subsidized sports in the same city that has a huge homeless problem and people are dying because of the doctor shortage. But hey, we gotta put on a sports show for the world!
Not a decision I'd choose to make, but nobody holds the government accountable for spending OUR money. If we dare have a government that says "we don't really need all this money we took, so we'll cut back how much we take." People complain about that too.
Matt, 2008-02-26 23:15:11
Matt there are many costs we don't capture, we are slowly doing that. For everything you buy, there is a disposal cost that should be tacked on at purchase (you will be disposing of it) and its the only chance you get to charge it because people don't want to pay when they are done and will just abandon. Gas burns up and hurts the environment and takes money to clean up, we don't pay that cost and always assumed the world was huge and it can handle it. Not true any more.
200hp electric motor 30 lbs
200 hp gas engine 600 lbs including needed transmission.
Batteries are not part of the motor, they are the weight problem though.
Tweety now you start off on another tangent with taxes, typical of you.
The true cost of something is paying for everything your choice costs.
A new house being built also includes the price of nature destoyed to build it which we don't charge for meaning less oxygen for everyone in the world, less living space for those animals you don't want hunted. If its far from work, the road needed to be guilt and maintained for you to go to work. The polution you will expell getting to work.
Why should people who walk in the city to work breath in your SUV fumes for free?
Ya taxes suck but the more something costs, the less likely you will choose to do it and thats a fact.
I know you have a tough time with simple concepts tweety.
wayne, 2008-02-26 20:55:43
It become difficult to fully grasp a government's reasoning when the principal reason given for a tax is "to fight climate change." The explanation might have made more sense if it had argued for clean air, but climate change? This comes as British Columbians are paying $1.20 to over $1.40 per litre for gas.
The serious economic downturn sweeping across America and exhausting the U.S. consumer is absolutely on its way to Canada, and will pass through its Northern border without slowing for customs. Pretending otherwise is frivolous and dangerous. It is time to tighten the belt and save. Each penny is going to count.
James Raider, 2008-02-26 20:31:12
And what is the "true cost" of their choice?
While there are some "costs" of living outside the city there are also substantial costs to the city lifestyle that we're not capturing either.
Matt, 2008-02-26 18:11:16
The power to weight ratio of electric motors including the power supply is horrible.
The biggest weakness with electric vehicles is heavy and expensive batteries.
Matt, 2008-02-26 17:15:19
wayne also says..
"And no every person isn't to live in the city but they should pay the true cost of their choice"
OH??
Every single tax payer in BC has their taxes go towards building a new skytrain route.
Every single taxpayer in BC pays to improve the sea to sky Highway so people from the Lowere mainland can get to Whistler easier
Every single taxpayer in BC paid for the Coquihalla highway so lowere mainlanders can get away on their vacations easier.
Every single tax payer in BC is paying for the wasteful 2010 Olympics.
The vast majority of people living in the interior and the North of BC get no benifits at all from those thingsbut have to pay equally.
Is that the true cost of their choice.
And whats with this CHOICE idiocy again?
People who dont live in Vancouver all CHOSE not to live in Vancouver?
You are one strange old man
No wonder you are so unhealthy
EH?
tweetypie, 2008-02-26 16:44:50
It is in our power to reduce fossil fuel significantly right now. I am not an "envromentalist" but do know we have to cut back and I do my little part. I ride my bike where possible, going to the corner store to get milk for example, I have a push mower that cuts the grass very nicely and doesn't take that much more effort to push then a gas since the energy used to push the weight of a gas is used to turn the blades or a reel mower. By the way I am 50 years old and this has helped me to stay in good shape for my age which reduces the pressure on the health system. Then there is the kids who are suppose to be educated in this "save the planet" generation. When I went to school the bike racks were full and very few got a ride. Now, during fair weather, the bike racks are empty and the streets near the schools are clogged with parents dropping off the kids which could easily walk. If a kid wants to rent a game they get a ride to the mall or game rental shop. They should be made to walk, it saves gas and gives them much needed exercise. Don't give me this bunk of how dangerous it is in neighbourhoods. Yes there are some bade neighbourhoods but most are very safe. If my generation wanted to go to the mall or show we had to walk or bike. Then there is our driving practises. From my own personal experience I know that if you make your top speed 100kph instead of 120 you save anywhere from 5-15% in fuel and is much safer and doesn't make that much difference in time to get where you are going. If you are in the city, travel during the off times (when you can) so you don't idle in traffic.
This is all so simple and if everyone did this I bet the fossil fuel consumption would drop 10%. But no we are a spoiled bunch and will keep doing what we are doing. Maybe the government should give strong tax incentives for riding your bike and using reel mowers? Or else a speeding ticket should also include a "waste of energy" addition of $50.00.
Until technology catches up with what we need to do there are options, just to bad most people decide not to use them.
Redneck Larry
Larry H, 2008-02-26 16:40:01
I mean really, does this make any sense to anyone?
"You say rural people will be penalized for driving farther then say they live where they do because thats where their job is, so then they aren't penalized more are they"
You also sound just like GW..
""You know, when you give a man more money in his pocket -- in this case, a woman more money in her pocket to expand a business, it -- they build new buildings. And when somebody builds a new building somebody has got to come and build the building. And when the building expanded it prevented additional opportunities for people to work." --George W. Bush, Lancaster, Pa., Oct. 3, 2007"
EH??????????????
tweetypie, 2008-02-26 16:37:31
wayne, 2008-02-26 15:28:01
What i quoted is an economic model that has been around for over 100 years that is used as a guideline to all financial decisions and is where we have slowly been headed for the last 100 years.
Hey tweety if they are close to their work that is not in the city, they won't be driving much then will they. You don't even realize when you contradict yourself.
You say rural people will be penalized for driving farther then say they live where they do because thats where their job is, so then they aren't penalized more are they.
You are the king of circular arguements.
By the way i work for the city of hamilton in Development. These arethe things that we have in studies. the trade off to not living in the city and living in suburbs are bigger, cheaper houses that have to have natural environment destroyed to build, expensive roads for the commute and higher polution levels do to more traffic.
But no I'm the idiot.
wayne, 2008-02-26 15:09:03