Good science cannot long persist in an atmosphere of intimidation. Political figures ought to be reviewing their public statements to make sure they are consistent with the best available science; scientists should not be reviewing their statements to make sure they are consistent with the current political orthodoxy. – House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY)
Author: Cam Proctor
Time Aware
Metaphorically, the atomic clock has been the measure for the potential of an atomic doomsday scenario caused by the proliferation of atomic weapons. The hands have gone beyond the 11th hour many times; paralleling world events. But now the scientific committee that determines the clocks’ positions are accounting for other world events that have the potential for similar consequences to an atomic doomsday. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists are taking stock of the threats of catosprophic nature to human society from the nano-technology, climate change, life sciences and information technology fields in order to raise their public profile. The group hopes to raise awarness of the potential dangers of new technological fields.
Canada’s Federal Green Party
In preparation of a coming election the Green Party of Canada will be announcing a new star candidate to take the reins of leadership. Elizabeth May, long time activist and former executive director to the Sierra Club of Canada has announced her intention to run for Green Party leader.
Having been privy to her first campaign event, I have to say the she posesses all the criteria of a great leader. Her humour and obvious in-depth knowledge of many Canadian issues make her ideal to push the Green Party beyond the psychological barrier of a one-trick enviropony. Additionally, May’s media savy and long history of environmental activism, will prove to add much needed intellectual policy dicussions come the next election.
Paraphrasing her words, May believes she will have great sucess in elevating the parties status because her platform in content, not poll driven (she plans to sponsor policy think tank meetings to develop the party’s platform) and well….she’s a woman….. who would be participating in a debate that usually doesnt see a lot of women.
Government Says Kyoto in YOUR hands now.
Not only did a single tear escape my eyes but a torrent at hearing the death of the Kyoto protocol in the Conservatives budget last night. I shed so much, doctors say I might be in a permanent state of dehydration.
But I woke up this morning with the Gatorade of new ideas and good intentions. My proposal: use your tax return to sponsor environmentally friendly initiatives and achieve your own little Kyoto. If the government kills a provided service and sponsors a tax break the shift that occurs is in the responsibility of the people to provide the service for themselves. Let me make this point perfectly clear, the CAPACITY to achieve Kyoto has not changed. In fact (in a strange way) the prospects have actually increased a little. Instead of blunderng government programs and off the mark service delivery (the government planned to buy emission credits to bail Canada out, the opposite of what a developed country was supposed to do) we now have the workings of a grass roots campaign funded by your tax return.
So invest in environmentally friendly initiatives. Use the money to buy energy effecient lights, support a wind farm, buy a solar panel, buy that fancy new bike and bike to work, take public transit (its cheaper now) and gobble up all the pollution credits you can and just hold them. This space is not the place for advertizing but I would be happy to suggest many of the excellent programs I have experience with, so please leave a comment.
I do wish to state that my proposal is mainly aimed to those of middle to higher income status who can afford such ventures. Lower income people deserve a tax break aimed directly at them and hopefully this proposal will meet the two goals of keeping Kyoto and helping to provide a government service for free that those of lower income couldnt afford.
Simpler Three R’s
A growing movement thats building in the waste management world is recognizing the Three R’s of waste disposal. The main difference is these Three R’s (Reuse, Recycle and Refuse, listed by priority) relates to importance of providing waste disposal services in coordination with the motto of the Three R’s.
The real rub is that when people talk about recycling they still speak as if they are going to the garbage. That’s because garbage is synonomous with waste disposal and recyclable material is still seen as a waste, not a valueable resource. People just tend to throw “garbage” away into the first available container. Those in the waste management industry see this as a failure to provide the services in line with the motto. The government mandates recycling but sponsors increasing the number of garbage containers. It’s kind of like putting a fast food resteraunt in the middle of a farmers field. Your offering quick and convient food, but your so far out of the way the trip isnt worth the service.
With prevalence and distribution of garbage containers vastly outnumbering those of a recyclable nature, its no wonder garbage is jam packed with recyclables. Reversing the situation and placing recycling containers everywhere and hiding garbage containers in dark and out of the way areas would be a great boom to the recycling industry. As much as it pains me to admit it, people just want rid of their garbage and will throw things away at the first available opportunity. Lets make the first spot they find be a recycling bin.