Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Climate change top issue, CEOs declare

STEVEN CHASE

From Monday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 4:58 AM EST 21/10/07

'Unprecedented consensus' among Canada's top business leaders has task force acknowledging need for emission cuts, higher energy prices ...Read the full article

This conversation is semi-moderated What is moderation? | How do I report a comment?

  1. Jeff S from Canada writes: wow. looks like earning a high salary has nothing to do with common sense. the last ice age came and went without these morons putting in their two cents worth. if global warming is supposed to be so bad how did all the animals that exist today survive the warming at the end of the last ice age, humans included.

    why are they now finding silver mines underneath the retreating glaciers in the alps.

    don't people have enough brains to think for themselves these days without swallowing all the rhetoric from self serving individuals.
  2. Voltaire's Distant Cousin from Toronto, Canada writes: Jeff, ever heard of Mass Extinctions?! You know, where 80 to 90% of species disappear. There have been many of them. And some were likely caused by global warming. The Permian/Triassic extinction, the largest of all, may have been caused magma heating up huge coal beds, causing a massive release of CO2. 55 million years ago, there was also a fairly large extinction that was likely caused by extreme temperatures.

    Speaking of extinctions, there seem to be fewer and fewer denial cult members like you around, though you are a very loud minority.
  3. h h from Canada writes: Jeff, you must be joking right?

    Yes, these "self-serving" morons are accepting and recommending having to pay more for energy they use during the course of business, decreasing their share prices as well as their own compensation. How selfish of them.

    But luckily you saw through their ploy, and now it is clear it is all a move by the crazy left wing-nuts to make us believe that there is global warming.

    I mean seriously, how is a warmer winter a bad thing?

    Good god, I wish your parents had been neutered.
  4. John Miller from Windsor, Canada writes: Wish your parents had been neutered? Denial Cults? Why is it that the shrillest voices on climate change seem to be so nervous about their pet theory that they want to stiffle all debate?
  5. Jeremy Kirouac from Victoria, Canada writes: As always, the devil is in the details.
  6. Jeff S from Canada writes: wow again. your non-arguments are so impressive. voltaire, you are obviously implying that although species survived many more were wiped out by the ensuing global warming. far enough. why don't you look up extinction on wikipedia and take a look at the diversity in the world today as compared throughout the ages. wow. looks like life is now more diverse than ever. h h, your sarcasm needs work. Do you honestly think these guys would could care less about whether they pay $0.06 a kwh or $0.07 a kwh. they make on average of $9million a year (google it). With regard to raising rates for their business and that. yeah, they'll really miss that $500k loss in salary. they'll only make $8.5million a year. boo hoo. With regard raising costs for businesses, it will only be passed on to the consumer anyway. so us peon's, JQ Public, get dinged twice. but i wouldn't expect you to understand that. get a life guys. atleast i can form a coherent argument on the topic. yes, i believe in global warming, but i also believe in global cooling (ie. the medival warm period and the little ice age). you guys probably work for some eco-terrorist group that goes around keying hummers and buying carbon credits so the little guys in India will use a foot treadle so you can feel good about yourselfs (http://roguepundit.typepad.com/roguepundit/2007/09/carbon-credits-.html)
  7. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: "there is still plenty of time to influence the direction of Canada's climate-change abatement strategy because the Harper government is still in the process of assembling it."

    Year Two of Mr. Harper's New Government, and they're STILL in the processing of assembling a strategy, just as good GWB minions would be.
  8. Dye Looted from Canada writes: Jeremy Kirouac from Victoria, Canada writes: As always, the devil is in the details.

    Yeah, and as usual, a few details don't appear in these articles.

    The key detail was the "acceptance" of higher energy costs. Indeed, let me translate..."please trigger inflation so the gov't can save our corporate A$$e$ PLEASE!

    It is very well known, that the adoption of "environmentalism" was a deliberate ploy by gov't and corporations ( who else do you know that actually pays to support those parasites ) to engender inflation and thereby secure the position corporations long after their economic relevance had passed.

    For a smart investor, the combination of events of the last few months, the failure to cover ( up ) the derivatives fiasco called ABCP and now this "call for higher energy prices" (?!?) is a pretty loud "get outta Dodge" signal.
  9. Mark H from Columbus, IN, United States writes: "Voltaire's Distant Cousin from Toronto, Canada writes: Jeff, ever heard of Mass Extinctions?! You know, where 80 to 90% of species disappear. There have been many of them. And some were likely caused by global warming. The Permian/Triassic extinction, the largest of all, may have been caused magma heating up huge coal beds, causing a massive release of CO2. 55 million years ago, there was also a fairly large extinction that was likely caused by extreme temperatures"

    All maybe, sorta right - it's all just research at this stage. If someone could prove the earth's mean temperature has increased by more than the measurement's margin of error, I'd believe something ought to be done. Oh wait, they can't......anytime business leaders call for price controls, alarm bells ought to go off.
  10. David Simon from Canada writes: Either these CEO's are mouthing global warmism for PR purposes or they really mean it . If the latter it may be time to get out of Canadian stocks. CEO's should not be approving concepts that will increase their costs.
  11. D. Hall from Canada writes: I agree with Kirouac about the devil being in the details. Nonetheless it is good that some segments of the business community have come to realize that denial is no longer a viable option.

    Now we can move the debate a few centimetres further along and work on how to accomplish the goals. Doubt much progress will be made with Harper in government, but perhaps he will do a bit as a sop to pressure. And certainly society can work out some long term strategies that can be implemented when he is gone.

    Agreeing with Thomas D'Aquino (sp?) on anything - shocking! I better have some more coffee and reread the article.
  12. Earl Anthony from Canada writes: Companies like General Electric are kowtowing to GW because they stand to make billions from windpower. Others such as Caterpillar are playing up to the environmental movement and public opinion. Others such as Goldman Sachs may actually in believe it.
  13. Jeff Hunt from Toronto, Canada writes: Harper pulls out of Kyoto, CEO's declare climate action. Sure. Smacks of orchestration to me.
  14. Philippe Davidson from Canada writes: If anyone interested in reading their declaration, it can be found at:

    http://www.ceocouncil.ca/publications/pdf/test14a7f87d43da18e574aa830d322a9cbe/CleanGrowthELIPolicyDeclarationOctober_1_2007.pdf
  15. Jean-Paul Sartre from Canada writes: Mmmm... Only two weeks ago the CEOs were begging and pleading the government to allow in unlimited numbers of cheap Mexican labourers (no doubt because of their acute concern for the social conditions of working Mexicans). Now two weeks later they are suddenly concerned about the environment ! Gosh, so much compassion and empathy from the corporate fat cats. Excuse the cynicism, but the smell of big profits can't be far away whenever the CEOs ask the government for anything.
  16. Bud Green from Canada writes: All politicians want to do is talk about doing something for the climate, but they are never really interested in doing something about it. They lead you to believe that they are putting substantial funds out there to come up with new technology, but try and get through the regulatory red tape to get some of it, or through the multi layered departments and agencies they have doling it out, by people who have no understanding of technology, and you get nowhere fast. I speak from experience. I am an inventor with several alternative energy technologies to develop that include clean diesel technology, affordable small scale wind turbine technology, heat shielding technology, and also a revolutionary design for a combustion engine. I cannot get "nickel one" from the government. So I wish they would come clean, and admit that they do not have the first clue as to how to go about funding new technology. They have been told by a group of scientists, that their co-funding restrictions, and red tape is not working, but they will not listen. I have approached Baird and also Dion in the past ,and these people are either clueless, or they just do not want to do anything. Now if you happen to be an Ottawa company with connections to the government, you can get a 900k grant to float a helium ballon and a windturbine on a tether, with no questions asked. Go figure! If there are any execs reading this, that are interested in getting involved with some real climate change technology, give me a call. 519 490 5440
  17. ravi patel from Thornhill, writes: Very rich coming from CEO's who have disregarded the environment for years in search of maximizing every nickel and dime possible. Now to appease the public they are crying to harper? Give me break.
  18. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: Trying to get in front of the oncoming train, Mr. D'Aguino, in order to derail it? How does climate change figure into your SPP master plan?
  19. Guns, SUVs and Hooters from United States writes: This is a good sign. These guys know that change is coming and they want to be part of the solution and not have solutions dictated to them. Candian consumers should take the same approach. There is still time to determine how we are going to act, and everyone can have a say, whether through their vote or pocket book.
  20. Cynthia Nurse from Canada writes: Hey Bud Green if you can't get funds from the Canadian Government try Davidson Design American Comany seeking new inventors support@PromoSpaces.com
  21. Joseph Beaudoin from United States writes: It just proves that CEOs want to be politically correct. While there is evidence of global warming, there is NO scientific evidence that it is caused by human activities. The latest study published in the March issue of Science, demonstrated that 120,000 years ago, the Earth was much warmer than today; there was no ice in Greenland and little in the Artic; yet... the CO2 levels were below today's levels! This phenomenon happened four times before now over the past 500,000 years (about once every 100,000 years).

    Human activities (the earliest evidence) began 12,000 years ago... Hence, if there were no human activities 120,000 years ago (and three times before that), what caused those global warming periods?

    Human caused global warming is an international cause for the uneducated.
  22. Cynthia Nurse from Canada writes: I believe this is a good first step having this Organization singing the song of "Climate Change"

    The challenge will be to getting everyone singing from the same page.
  23. Joseph Beaudoin from Philadelphia, United States writes: Evidence of confusion among the "believers" in Human-caused global warming:

    "Voltaire's Distant Cousin from Toronto, Canada writes: Jeff, ever heard of Mass Extinctions?! You know, where 80 to 90% of species disappear. There have been many of them. And some were likely caused by global warming. The Permian/Triassic extinction, the largest of all, may have been caused magma heating up huge coal beds, causing a massive release of CO2. 55 million years ago, there was also a fairly large extinction that was likely caused by extreme temperatures.

    Speaking of extinctions, there seem to be fewer and fewer denial cult members like you around, though you are a very loud minority. "

    IN OTHER WORDS, THIS GLOBAL WARMING HAPPENED BEFORE WITHOUT HUMAN ACTIVITIES... Does that not prove that Global Warming is independent of human activities?
  24. Leon Russell from Gatineau, Canada writes: Incredible. These are the people responsable for fouling our waters and our air for a century. They are the one's producing the fertilizers and the pesticides that are killing our lakes. They are why we shouldn't eat too much ocean fish contaminated with mercury and they are why there aren't many fish left to eat anyway.

    In a healthy, democratic society such as 18th century France, these captains-of-industry-become-kings would be tried for their crimes and guillotined or drawn and quartered in the public square.

    Yet here they are essentially vetting the government's no-teeth environmental approach with an election looming in order to head off the remote possibility that a party that actually HAS an environmental agenda should ever gain power.

    L'hypocrisie crève les yeux.
  25. Paul C from Toronto, Canada writes: Joseph Beaudoin: "international cause for the uneducated". Yes - top universities usually hand out PhDs via lottery system.
  26. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: Joseph Beaudoin from Philadelphia, United States writes: "Does that not prove that Global Warming is independent of human activities?"

    Nope. It only proves that it can be, not that it is.
  27. Joseph Beaudoin from Philadelphia, United States writes: Leon Russell wrote: "In a healthy, democratic society such as 18th century France, these captains-of-industry-become-kings would be tried for their crimes and guillotined or drawn and quartered in the public square."

    18th century France was anything but a democratic society. The last part of your statement demonstrates that eloquently.
  28. Dark Green from Greenland, Cuba writes: Poor CEO's! They'd better wake up before the cost of doing just about nothing ruins us all, themselves included... But I am not convinced they are even half-awake. It is fashionable to display all shades of green, these days, while dragging one's feet. Meanwhile, the environment deteriorates at an always faster pace, has no time to listen and wait for the CEO's...
  29. Joseph Beaudoin from Philadelphia, United States writes: Paul C. : The most knowledgeable climate scientists, including Lindzen of M.I.T., do not believe the propaganda fed to the masses of uneducated who have replaced Lenin's "useful idiots" on the issue of Global Warming.

    But do address my point. If Global Warming took place four times in the past 500,000 years, and no human caused it, why is it now that humans are causing it???
  30. Will Alexander from Perth, Canada writes: Canadians have been asking Harper for the past two years for a concrete plan on climate change - all we've heard is hot air and "blame the Liberals" over and over. The results so far from the Cons is a copy of the GWB "do nothing, but do it voluntarily."

    If the CEOs are asking for a plan then Harper must really have done nothing - even big business can see that...
  31. Joseph Beaudoin from Philadelphia, United States writes: Hugh Campbell: Review your Scientific Method... Global Warming took place independently from human activities four times before. But your conclusion for today's global warming phenomenon is that humans are causing it.

    Human activities, even since the industrial revolution, account for less than 5% of CO2 producition. Nature does the rest...

    Human-cause Global Warming is a way for people who can't make money to get funding from governments and from the uneducated who believe whatever they read in the like of Metro.
  32. Leon Russell from Gatineau, Canada writes: From the article:

    "A key goal in this public embrace of the battle against global warming is to forestall measures from current or future governments that would unduly penalize the Canadian economy"

    This report doesn't mention it, but apparently the statement from the CEO's criticizes the Liberal's approach and basically says the Conservatives' "realistic" approach is better. Not hard to figure out from that that they've seen the writing on the wall but that they want to support the gang that's the most sympathetic to their nefarious cause.
  33. G P from Ottawa, Canada writes: There is something definitely wrong with business leaders supposedly supporting price mechanisms. In fact, the section "The power of price signals" nominally supports the idea of "environmental taxation" but naturally lobs the ball for how this unimplementable turd of an idea will actually work. No matter, as long as "Policies aimed at changing behavior through price signals must deliver positive environmental outcomes in ways that foster an innovative economy and strengthen Canada's competitive advantage." I can't wait for my government to tell me where to put my money but as long as it is a really good Price Signal, I won't ask questions. I guess though, if it significantly reduces the savings I can put towards my child's education or my own retirement or my health, and if my employer is just not cool with me not driving to work anymore, the government won't mind if I opt out of income taxes. Of course, all of this may also ride on "a future international process that will ensure the participation of all emitting countries." Aha! See, once one has worked in a corporation, you can spot CYA activities a mile away, even if they are slickly packaged by a corporately-assembled corporate executive council. Makes me wonder how many of these executives actually support this generic babble. Interesting that 2006 and 2007 have been fairly debilitating years for the Gorites. More dissenting voices are appearing, and the machinery of media has largely moved on from the frantic highs of early 2006. Even so, one-side climate pieces still show up in our national newspapers without any semblance of scientific objectivity. But then, when one group of scientists has sucessfully labeled the other with a Holocaust-evoking moniker, compromising their own hallowed role as objective participants and shaming most of them in the process, why shouldn't newspapers be enablers? It's so much easier that way.
  34. john douglas from Canada writes: Deniers abound!
    What are your scientific credentials anyway?
    Besides voting for trash-can harper and his cadre of mike harris retreads.
    Oil patch, oil patch, yeah! yeah! yeah!
  35. Geoffrey May from Canada writes: This is long overdue , better late than never .Effectively the CEOs are publicly pointing out Harpers con-job on climate change .That a group of industry players can recognize the need for action now is heartening .
    Postings from Globe readers , are less encouraging .The most ignorant are at least too ashamed to attach their names to their drivel , I suppose that's a hopeful sign as well
  36. J Hart from Canada writes: The whole man made global warming garbage is a scam , yes a big scam,
    brought to you by the usual suspects , globalists, CFR, Trilateral commision
    Bilderberg, the UN , here in Canada we have the Canadian Council of CEO's ,
    They have almost acommplished what they set out to do,,, take global warming to the point of being a religion
    1 :anyone questioning it is labeled a heritic or a denier.
    2 : Convince us it is all our fault and we should be punished
    3 :Then they will swoop in and pose as our saviors
    But in order to save us we will have to be taxed !!!
    A global tax on every human for air (CO2),,(kyoto)
    Does this tax help the enviroment?,,,, nope , not one bit,
    But you sure can make a lot of money selling and buying air (carbon credits).
  37. James Cyr from Balmertown, Ontario, Canada writes: It will be interesting to see what will be proposed as "solutions".
  38. G P from Ottawa, Canada writes: Oh John Douglas...what are YOUR scientific credentials? Why do YOU get to stuff your self-flagellating views down my throat? My credentials include the ability to read and comprehend, make ample use of Google, and question authority and convention. What do you do?

    Geoffrey May...what does attaching my name have to do with my commentary? Do you feel like a bigshot knowing you have the full power of the PC intellectual muzzle behind you? When you read, again, that Canada's emissions are x % higher than they were when the Liberals signed the agreement, do you cogitate on what "meeting Kyoto" means or do you write "Kyoto = Good, Harper = Bad" on your hand before you leave to pick up your fair-trade coffee in the morning?
  39. R C from Toronto, Canada writes: What a crock!! Do these CEOs expect me to believe that they suddenly are concerned about the environment? It's obvious that their intent is to take control of the process. It's no secret; see the quote from D'Aquino "Unless we pull together and get a degree of consensus in the country … Canada will continue to be mired in this highly destructive, non-productive debate that eventually will lead to – I don't know – maybe Draconian regulations that make no sense whatsoever" What they're really concerned about is that if they aren't able to influence what happens, they may really have to cut emissions substantially. What they call "Draconian regulations" are the kinds of emissions cuts that are ACTUALLY NEEDED to slow and reverse climate change. Furthermore, they intend to sway the government to provide subsidies for technologies for their industries such as Suncor's desire to get even more subsidies for its massively environmentally destructive Alberta tar sands projects. Naturally, the morally bankrupt Harper government, which has done absolutely zero to reduce emissions (and has no intention of doing anything), will play along.
  40. Cryin Outloud from Canada writes: Tomas d'Aquino supports a nonsustainable future, always has and always will according to his very position.

    How many of the those corporations d'Aquino speaks for, like Telus, are asking their employees to fill up at ESSO first in their company vehicles? ESSO, the most environmentally unfriendly oil company in existence.

    d'Aquino being a big part of the Harper SPP plans is about as likely to give a cent toward looking after the environment as Harper is. I'll bet he's happy to be in on the ground floor of NON-action that LOOKS and SOUNDS like action.

    I say John Baird interviewed on "Politics" and every sentence included the word "action" like by saying it over and over one would expect there was some happening. This government and this "porta thoughtie" stink tank need to be stood up to by the people of this country.
  41. Diogenes the Cynic from North York-Corsica, France writes: "If Global Warming took place four times in the past 500,000 years, and no human caused it, why is it now that humans are causing it???" --- Reminds me of "arguments" heard some years ago: "If, people had cancer before existed nuclear tests (think of evidence from Egyptian mummies!), and no nuclear fallout could have caused it, why is it now that nuclear fallouts are causing cancer???" --- Well, man, because in our time nuclear tests in the atmosphere have produced nuclear fallouts which, long-term, do cause cancer, no matter what you believe. So add nuclear fallouts to your list.
  42. john douglas from Canada writes: I have a degree in chemistry including electives in both chemistry of the atmosphere and oceans. (I also have mail order degrees in murderology AND murderonomy!)
    Do you really think we can pump 100 million kilograms of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere everyday for 60 years and it won't have an effect?
    ReallY?!
  43. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    Last week Condi Rice and George Bush conceded that human activity was a significant factor in Gobal Warming (if not, why enjoin all nations to take "environmentally effective measures to combat it?).

    This week, the CEO's of major Canadian business do the same.

    Yet still, the internet deniers (they don't appear anywhere else) see conspiracy and lodge cui bono accusation both left and right!

    Earl Anthony writes "Companies like General Electric are kowtowing to GW because they stand to make billions from windpower."

    And the problem with that is exactly what Earl?
  44. Mike McFae from Canada writes: Great strategic move guys. Now do something useful and take up a collection of say $1 million and donate to either womens' shelters or a child poverty organization.
  45. agent sixtynine from Canada writes: Human induced global warming is a myth.
  46. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    john douglas writes: "Do you really think we can pump 100 million kilograms of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere everyday for 60 years and it won't have an effect?"

    The total CO2 mankind pumps into the air each year is in fact more like 27,245,758,000,000 kilograms.

    Thus, the problem is about 275,000 times worse than your statement suggests.
  47. Dick Nails from Desoronto, Canada writes: Voltaire's Distant Cousin from Toronto, Canada writes: Jeff, ever heard of Mass Extinctions?! You know, where 80 to 90% of species disappear. There have been many of them. And some were likely caused by global warming. Speaking of extinctions, there seem to be fewer and fewer denial cult members like you around, though you are a very loud minority.

    Volly, can you show where glow ball warming was the cause of mass entinctions in the past? Saying 'some were likely' is not science but pure speculation. And as for denying, who said the debeate is over? Oh yeah, the goracle and his CDN mini-minion Dave 'David' Soozookey. So if the debate is over, why bother bringing it up? Better start puttin up secular eco-crosses to nail the deniers as examples of what happens when you go against the current religion on the yobs.
  48. George Morrison from Toronto, ON, writes: Enormously positive initiative, and major kudos to the CCCE for delivering on this.

    Still, I am reminded of a recent post at gristmill.grist.org: "Quick, before the people who really mean it show up!" In other words, as D'Aqunio mentions in the article, they want to influence policy to avert anything "too Draconian". Unfortunately, as Bill McKibben notes in a Washington Post op-ed yesterday: "The problem lies in how one defines reality. Physics and chemistry demand swift and deep cuts in carbon emissions; political realism says to move slowly. In that fight, there's really only one choice. The tax code can be amended, but the laws of nature can't... Global warming has a huge head start; the sprint to catch up is the story of our time."
  49. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    Sorry, john douglas, I missed where your said "each day."

    Still, the problem is 750 times worse than you initially indicated.

    (I'm sure you understand that I agree with you completely).
  50. Tim Rutkevich from Canada writes: It is time for share holders and boards to fire all 150 of these CEO's. They don't do the jobs, instead they waging a political campaigns.
  51. Dick Nails from Desoronto, Canada writes: Leon Russel, check the calendar. It is 2007. You may think you want to live in 18th C France and all but a few eco-loudmouths/psuedo-marxists believe they can turn the clock back. Sure, go ahead but you have to kill about 5B people. Take it from your esteemed leaders, the usual marxists with guns and very bad ideas on social engineering, all dead thankfully, that genocide is a bad thing.
  52. J Billins from Toronto, Canada writes: What the "man-made global warming believers" should do is present proof. Until that is done we will be just dealing with consensus. And as any scientificly educated person can tell you, science is not based on a voting system.
  53. Dick Nails from Desoronto, Canada writes: Geoff May, if that is your real name (post your phone # and home address if it is) tapped out: Postings from Globe readers , are less encouraging .The most ignorant are at least too ashamed to attach their names to their drivel , I suppose that's a hopeful sign as well'

    Are you really Geoff May? prove it. Why hide? Now if I say that c02 is not important you will come to my home or office and acost me, threaten me and my family. Gallileo? Hello Gallileo? Lomborg? Oh yeah, big religion and big science does not like heretics. Nor do the unthinking chicken littles. Why does your psuedo-eco religion deny deniers? What threat are we? That the falsity of the 'debate' would be exposed? You're argument is weak which is why 'deniers' are hounded and harassed.
  54. Dick Nails from Desoronto, Canada writes: Joseph Beaudoin from Philadelphia, United States writes: Leon Russell wrote: "In a healthy, democratic society such as 18th century France, these captains-of-industry-become-kings would be tried for their crimes and guillotined or drawn and quartered in the public square."

    18th century France was anything but a democratic society. The last part of your statement demonstrates that eloquently.

    It is also shows exactly how deniers will be dealt with. Leon is pig ignorant of something that is known, 18th century history, and would as off-handedly draw and quarter some one based on a bad theory being sold by a failed America poli. Except that the failed poli is the goracle. Hail the goracle, please, bring me a multi-trillion dollar gov't run scam to rid the world of ... oh yeah, a gas.
  55. Dick Nails from Desoronto, Canada writes: J Billins from Toronto, Canada writes: What the "man-made global warming believers" should do is present proof. Until that is done we will be just dealing with consensus. And as any scientificly educated person can tell you, science is not based on a voting system.

    But that is how the 4th IPCC report was written. Worse, the process was write the abstracts first, submit for the report and then do your research which would follow the abstracts. Is that science? And where is the famous hocky stick in the 4th report? Gone. Exposed as fraud and conveniently removed with no explanation. Big science = big religion.
  56. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: J Billins from Toronto, Canada writes: "And as any scientificly educated person can tell you, science is not based on a voting system."

    If you think consensus is an outcome of voting, your further uneducated opinions can be ignored.
  57. John L. Murlowe from Canada writes: “Unless we pull together and get a degree of consensus in the country &8230; Canada will continue to be mired in this highly destructive, non-productive debate that eventually will lead to &8211; I don't know &8211; maybe Draconian regulations that make no sense whatsoever,&8221; Mr. d'Aquino said."

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CEO. Does that mean Comedic Executive Organization? If Mr, d'Aquino doesn't know, then who does?

    These CEOs, the captains of conspicuous consumption and flinging money about -- many of whom whinge about government intervention -- are now clambering all over themselves to get on the latest whirlwind of money, as they cry for government to raise prices.

    Which of them is going to come forth to lead the way and personally offer sacrifices in his or her own lifestyle? Which of them will give up their yachts? Their 5000 sq. ft homes? Their Jaguars and Royces?
  58. James Cyr from Balmertown, Ontario, Canada writes: Most, if not all of the CO2 is absorbed in water. It is a known fact that current CO2 levels are the lowest they have been in millions of years. We are also in an interglacial period. What do the CEO's propose, now that they have acknowledged that there may be a problem? they should be proposing alternative energy sources, and less polluting products.
  59. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    Hugh Campbell - You hit the "Nail" on the head.
  60. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    John L. Murlowe - Gotta love the "arguments" from the deniers.

    On the one hand "anyone who uses gas and advocate addressing AGW is a hipocrite!"

    On the other hand "Canada shouldn't bother doing anything at all 'cause were so small it won't make any difference!"

    Yep. A helpful contribution.
  61. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    James Cyr writes: "It is a known fact that current CO2 levels are the lowest they have been in millions of years... The [CEO's] should be proposing alternative energy sources, and less polluting products."

    Pick a side, James!

    Why should anybody propose doing anything if, as you suggest, human activity isn't a significant cause of the problem?
  62. Another Point of View from Calgary, Canada writes: A global recession MAY take care of this matter. Corporate layoffs, 11% unemployment, personal and corporate bankruptcies and increased income taxes. Then it MAY be "what the hell is global warming".

    You see, this MAY be substantially driven by fear. But this fear MAY not ring as loud as people who fear loss of livelihood.

    Perhaps we can start and end the debate at the same time with a great big carbon tax.

    The GW camp MAY have been better off calling this what it is...pollution. Because we all KNOW this isn't good for us.
  63. J Billins from Toronto, Canada writes: Here's one for the IPPC believers out there;

    Journey-Don't Stop Believin'
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNB1EUJg1-w
  64. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    James Cyr writes: "Most, if not all of the CO2 is absorbed in water."

    And CO2 levels are increasing because... not all of the CO2 is absorbed in water maybe?

    And the capacity of water to absorbe CO2 is...not unlimited perhaps?

    And the CO2 which is absorbed by water... does not stay there permanently possibly?

    And the mega-tones of additional CO2 in oceans...increases the acidity of the water and itself has detimental environmental effect in addition to AGW?

    I guess you're saying, no, no, no and no?

    Hmmm...

    And its wrong to call you guys deniers because...why exactly?
  65. George Morrison from Toronto, ON, writes: James Cyr from Balmertown, Ontario, Canada writes:
    "Most, if not all of the CO2 is absorbed in water. It is a known fact that current CO2 levels are the lowest they have been in millions of years." Both of the those statements are patently FALSE. CO2 is accumulating in both the oceans and the atmosphere and are at much higher levels than they were pre-Industrial age. This is all well-documented by the IPCC. So there is no way that "all" of the CO2 is absorbed in water, nor that levels are their lowest in millions of years... That is just absolute nonsense. Furthermore, when you combust hydrocarbons with oxygen, you produce CO2. Unless you are proposing some new theory of physics whereby mass is not conserved, or a heretofore unknown rapid chemical catalysis of this CO2, we must be accumulating CO2 in the biosphere...

    "What do the CEO's propose, now that they have acknowledged that there may be a problem?"

    It's all there in their papers, at the site http://www.ceocouncil.ca/en/ . Granted, the proposals are somewhat vague, and continue to tout nonsensical "intensity" targets as opposed to hard caps, but it is all there...
  66. john douglas from Canada writes: It's a very serious problem we can both agree. I was very conservative with my guesstimation so that I wouldn't be accused of fearmongering. I am now five full months without a car but I know this is not possible for many people. Luckily I can ride my bike to work or take the bus. In the upcoming winter (or monsoon season more likely) I will need to get some serious rain gear. If people were to enter their schedules and addresses into a massive database a huge nation wide carpool system could be constructed. It would mean a little sacrifice but it's very "do-able". I live about 70 km from vancouver and every morning I see more and more single occupancy vehichles heading for the city. Very disturbing. gordo just released his big "green plan", I suspect it's just a lot of smoke and mirrors, just like every other half-truth or outright lie that issues forth from his mouth. It's all his developer buddies jamming condo's into my town right now, thousands and thousands of them, creating these new long distance commuters I'm seeing. Guess what the sea-to-sky highway expansion was REALLY all about. It wasn't safety or the olympic$, those were just convenient excuses to put it on the public tab. Developers brag in their advertisements about the "new highway" and how much fun the scenic drive will be from your new luxury condo!! I figure theres about 5 billion dollars worth of development being dumped on us in the near future. Did we ask for all these new people overnight - no! Did we want all our green spaces mowed down and condoized - no! Do we support thousands of new long-distance commuters - no! Do we want traffic congestion which we've never had before - no! Do we want more wildlife killed by cars and trucks - no! Do gordo and his developer buddies give a sh!t what we want? NO! Now they're talking about twenty story towers where our sawmill used to be. Where will it end?
  67. James Cyr from Balmertown, Ontario, Canada writes: Voice of Reason: there is no "side" to pick. there is only to do wiat is right, and what is necessary. What we should be doing is reducing all forms of pollution both on an individual and corporate basis. We should all be doing what we can. Corporations and businesses can concentrate on alternate energy sources. CO2 is absorbed in water and absorbed by plant life. It is necessary for the proliferation of all life. CO2 levels have been at their lowest in millions of years. This has nothing to do with "denial". It is everything to do with facts, not models. The mark of a true scientist is skepticism--of the necessity to look at facts based on observations, of the necessity to verify theories before stating them as "fact". It is subjective and false to label anyone who questions the theory as a "denier". We know what happens to CO2 when it becomes saturated in water--it precipitates out as CaCO3. It does not bubble off into the atmosphere and create global warming.
  68. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    Now that Canadian CEOs are looking for ways to help, no doubt American CEOs will take last weeks instructions of Bush and Rice to heart very soon.

    Here's an idea for them.

    There's already one large oil company that has tried to capitalize on Americal xenophobia with slogans like "our gas is 100% American - why send you money to the middle east?"

    This same company - perhaps many others - could easily make a buck by pointing out that Canadian oil (from Alberta at least) is significantly more harmful to the Global Warming solution than Texas crude. This has the distinct benefit of actually being true since, unlike in Texas, huge amounts of energy are used oto extract oil from sand in Alberta.

    Perhaps we'll soon see slogans south of the boarder:

    Our gas is 100% tar sands oil free!

    Save the environment, do your part, demand 100% Alberta-oil-free gasoline for you and your family!

    Just a matter of time.
  69. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    James Cyr - Stop dancing!

    Are you saying we do not need to reduce CO2 emissions?

    Yes or No.

    Its a pretty simple question.
  70. J Billins from Toronto, Canada writes: Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: If you think consensus is an outcome of voting, your further uneducated opinions can be ignored.

    Hugh: Please refrain from expressing your distrust for our voting system, you are off topic.
  71. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    J Billins - Hugh is quite right. Consensus and voting are not the same.

    You think George Bush was elected President by a consensus of the American people?

    Consensus means there is something upon which all agree.
  72. P G from Canada writes: Voice of Reason wrote "Last week Condi Rice and George Bush conceded that human activity was a significant factor in Gobal Warming ... This week, the CEO's of major Canadian business do the same."

    Ah, the CCCE, they serve their American masters well!

    Same with Harper: George Bush signed a free trade deal with Columbia, so six months later, Harper signs a free trade deal with Columbia.

    Yes boss! We aim to serve boss!
  73. James Cyr from Balmertown, Ontario, Canada writes: Voice of Reason: I do not understand your "dancing" comment. And we need to reduce CO2 emissions within the context of reducing all forms of pollution, not trying to change the world climate.
  74. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:

    James Cyr - Man, how long does it take to type a "yes" or a "no" ?
  75. George Morrison from Toronto, ON, writes: "Voice of Reason from Canada writes: Now that Canadian CEOs are looking for ways to help, no doubt American CEOs will take last weeks instructions of Bush and Rice to heart very soon."

    Of course, there already is USCAP (United States Climate Action Partnership), that includes Alcan, Alcoa, Chrysler, GM, Shell, Dupont, Duke Energy, BP America, Dow Chemical, etc., allied on basically the same points as the Canadian CEO's made today...

    Re: Canadian oil sands... practically the US will not be able to point fingers at the oilsands until they deal substantially with US coal, but once that is on the table... In any event, this is all resolved with proper pricing signals for carbon...
  76. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    George Morrison - Excellent post.

    But I'm not suggesting the US (as a nation) will call Alberta oil to account for its wastefulness.

    I do think specific oil companies now have an excellent to differentiate their product on environmental grounds.

    Why wouldn't they do this? Alberta oil is taking their market share. Its fair competition to point out how much more damaging Alberta oil is to the environment than virtually all other oil sources.

    Free market and all that.
  77. J Billins from Toronto, Canada writes: Voice of Reason from Canada writes: J Billins - Hugh is quite right. Consensus and voting are not the same. You think George Bush was elected President by a consensus of the American people?
    Consensus means there is something upon which all agree.

    Voice: So a consensus is a unaimous vote?
  78. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    James Cyr writes: "I do not understand your "dancing" comment. And we need to reduce CO2 emissions within the context of reducing all forms of pollution, not trying to change the world climate."

    Look. You just danced a bit right there. Now I'll have to take a step and re-phrase the question to try and figure out what you're trying to say. Here goes.

    Do you agree that manmade emissions of CO2 will alter the earth's climate in the next 100 years if these emissions increase at their present rate?

    Yes or no.
  79. John L. Murlowe from Canada writes: Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    John L. Murlowe - Gotta love the "arguments" from the deniers.
    On the one hand "anyone who uses gas and advocate addressing AGW is a hipocrite!"
    On the other hand "Canada shouldn't bother doing anything at all 'cause were so small it won't make any difference!"
    Yep. A helpful contribution.
    --------------------------------------------------

    Are you talkin' t'me? If you are: I didn't call anyone a hypocrite. I just called for leadership instead of pushership. I called for CEOs to lead not to push, to set an example not to leave it all to rising costs for the consumer while they save their own behinds.

    These are the people who argue on the one hand for free marketplaces, and how the marketplace can solve problems, yet they scurry under the rock of government intervention when it suits their guys with the green eyeshades so they can keep their yachts and big cars and big houses that use 4 times the energy to heat as my home does. They want ME to pay the price of THEIR CONSUMPTION.

    From their comfy boardrooms, these brains pontificate that the public ought to sacrifice.
  80. James Cyr from Balmertown, Ontario, Canada writes: No
  81. Geoffrey May from Canada writes: Att Mr. Dick Nails .Yes I use my real name , although in a forum rife with nom de plum , I won't provide my phone number to you .The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change began its work in 1988 . Since then they have published several reports .I suggest "denyers" start there . My acceptance of man-made climate crisis was easy . I can't imagine anyone would deny that since the begining of the "industrial revolution"we are expending more carbon into the atmosphere than any previous time in history , and I can't imagine that anyone would claim that there has been an increase in earth's carbon sinks .In short , fewer sinks , more co2 will cause changes to our atmosphere .That is basic science .World media , has always had an anti-environment bias , as anyone involved in environmental causes learns .
    I regrett that you fell hounded and harrasssed for your opinions.
  82. John L. Murlowe from Canada writes:
    Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    James Cyr - Stop dancing!
    Are you saying we do not need to reduce CO2 emissions?

    Yes or No. Its a pretty simple question.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

    Say NO! James. Then we can watch the Voice of Reason go apoplectic
  83. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    J Billins writes: "Voice: So a consensus is a unanimous vote?"

    You're getting closer.

    A unanimous vote can be achieved by means other than a process of consensus. Where agreement is reached by a process of consensus, its not accurate to say that people merely voted on the question.

    Consensus mean a particular kind of agreement, not a particular kind of voting.
  84. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    James Cyr writes: "No."

    Fine.

    So it necessarily follows that you believe no one need do anything to reduce CO2 emissions at all?

    Have I got you right?
  85. James Cyr from Balmertown, Ontario, Canada writes: Voice of Reason: you seem to enjoy definitive answers taken out of context. I have tried to put my replies within a proper framework however you ignore them. Again, to reply to your statement, "so it necessarily follows that you believe no one need to anything to reduce CO2 emissions at all?", I will say again: yes, we need to reduce emissions within the context of reducing all forms of pollution, not trying to change the global climate. Your moniker states that you are the "Voice of Reason". Please try and live up to that name.
  86. Bob Beal from Edmonton, Canada writes: "Consensus" these days in any academic field means something that the very large majority of experts in the field can agree upon, despite a few contrarians. I am not a scientist, but I know it works the same in science as it does in my field.

    Real "consensus" is a little different. The First Nations were consensus societies. The way it generally worked was that people would sit in a circle to consider a topic or problem. Each person in the circle would speak in order (in some societies, a "talking stick" was passed). No-one could be interrupted while speaking. Each speaker could elaborate on what the previous speaker had said, or introduce new information, but (and this is the important part) he could not disagree with what had already been said. Eventually, true consensus was reached.

    I have participated in some of these circles. It is a very time-consuming process, but the results are like magic. It is easy to try it, if people are interested.
  87. J Billins from Toronto, Canada writes: Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    J Billins writes: "Voice: So a consensus is a unanimous vote?"
    You're getting closer.
    A unanimous vote can be achieved by means other than a process of consensus. Where agreement is reached by a process of consensus, its not accurate to say that people merely voted on the question.
    Consensus mean a particular kind of agreement, not a particular kind of voting.

    Voice; So when Al Gore says "a consensus of scientists agree with the IPPC report", is he lying or just fudging the truth?
  88. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    James Cyr