Canadians Leave Heavy Ecological Footprint

Finally, the "accusers" become the "accused". I love it.

Warlock

---
"The consequence of YOUR freedom of speech, is MY freedom of speech"-Warlock

Hey warlock, you finally decided to show up.

Now back to the "Harper buddying up to Bush thread", and answer the damn question.

Or are you too much the coward to address it?

---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

"The Weapon" - Rush

This article fails to point out that it isn't the Canadian people who are responsible for causing this consumption.

It is a direct result of the Canadian Government selling out our resources to the American Corporations and THEY are the ones who are the cause of this problem. So, both of these parties are to blame and that should be noted.

Intelligent Canadians are reducing-reusing-recyling so don't blame us!

Good call Chris

It did seem swomewhat odd that 33 million Canadians would use anywhere near the amount of resources that the US does.

Factor in that Canada as a nation also has the second largest land area of any nation on earth, and also has the longest internal transportation system, and one can see how we need to use more resources, specifically fuel, per capita than citizens of the majority of other nations.

As for the rest, I'd need to see the actual report.

And I, for one, would love to read the report in it's entirity and in full context before rendering my full opinion on it.

---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

"The Weapon" - Rush

If the current high level of pollution is any indication, there is no doubt Canada is up there with the biggest offenders. But let's wait until 2050 to do something about it.

How incredibly warlock like!
Nothing to say re the Anti-American This! topic and like a ghoul to gore on this!




---
Diogenes said:
"I am Diogenes the Dog. I nuzzle the kind, bark at the greedy and bite scoundrels."

I am wondering from where we consume the most.

"It says the carbon dioxide footprint, from the use of fossil fuels, was the fastest growing component of our global ecological footprint, increasing more than nine fold from 1961 to 2003."

I imagine the population has increased slightly since 1961 and that will account for more vehicles. However, vehicles have also become more efficent since then. We sell considerably more fossil fuel then we consume so perhaps the many factories spread across the country is consuming the fuel. Hmm! no factories in my neck of the woods. It must be all the old cars still running. Even the Americans only pollute 25% of the worlds pollution and they just hit the 300 million population mark. Canadas population barely exceeds Californias. Hopefully, Canadians aren't trying to heat their homes in the winter.



---
Expect little from life and get more from it.

You are absolutely right, Canada is huge and the distances between large metropolitan areas is the cause of our high energy consumption as well as wheather.

We tend to use the size of the country and relative slight population as an excuse not to do anything. But we've had a hundred years to rid ourselves of that most inefficient mode of travel called the automobile (maybe 25% on as good day?) and dwellings that recognize hot summers and cold winters for the most part, instead of leaning lazily on more heating and more airconditioning.

Where's our own high-speed maglev, spanning the country? Why are houses not buried in hillsides (where there are hills) instead of being exposed to heat and cold?
Why are we still so mechanical and brutish in our approach? Where's the finesse?

---
"Son, if you wanna get ahead in this world, never work for another man as long as you live."

RPW, I was not excusing doing nothing, I was stating facts as I understood them.

Concerning your call for a cross country maglev, have you any idea of how much power running such a system would require?

How many "tracks" would your proposed line require to be most efficient?

Are your prepared to see even more coal and gas electrical plants being built to support it?

And if those are not enough, are you prepared to go nuclear and build reactors?

Obvious questions, yes?

And regarding

"Why are houses not buried in hillsides (where there are hills) instead of being exposed to heat and cold?"

What would you call high rises and multi floor apartments if not houses that have BECOME hills?

Every time you double the size of a box, you square it's surface area, and cube it's internal volume.

That in itself breeds high effiency, which is increased when appropriate insulation steps are included.

It's all basic physics.



---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

"The Weapon" - Rush

<i> <u> RPW, I was not excusing doing nothing, I was stating facts as I understood them. </u></i> <P> Not accusing. But this is trotted out everytime someone accuses Canadians of being prolific users. It's tiring......</P> <i> <u> Concerning your call for a cross country maglev, have you any idea of how much power running such a system would require?</u></i> <P> With increased efficiencies, not nearly as much as is thrown out the window today inthe form of heat......</P> <i> <u> How many "tracks" would your proposed line require to be most efficient?</u></i> <P> Replace the road/rail system entirely, of course.</P> <i> <u> Are your prepared to see even more coal and gas electrical plants being built to support it?</u></i> <P> Sunlight, crack H2O, Burn it, Fuel cell it, recombine it. Like I said, we've had a hundred years to replace the inefficiencies of the automobile, and we haven't done it. </P> <i> <u> And if those are not enough, are you prepared to go nuclear and build reactors?</u></i> <P> See above........</P> <i> <u> What would you call high rises and multi floor apartments if not houses that have BECOME hills? </u> </i> <P> Not highrises. "Low-rises". Put 'em in the ground, where the temperature is a constant. Basic physics. </P> <p>---<br>"Son, if you wanna get ahead in this world, never work for another man as long as you live."

<a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1849406,00.html">http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1849406,00.html</a><br />
<a href="http://www.hitit.co.uk/tosee/cappy/ucities.html">http://www.hitit.co.uk/tosee/cappy/ucities.html</a><br />
<a href="http://www.goway.com/downunder/australia/saus/saus_coober.html">http://www.goway.com/downunder/australia/saus/saus_coober.html</a><p>---<br>"Son, if you wanna get ahead in this world, never work for another man as long as you live."

We all can do better in living more ecologicaly efficent. Some say monitary penalties will make us do that. We are so use to paying more for everything that we no longer recognize tax's as punishment but simply the means of extortion. Vehicles have become more efficent and becoming even more so. We demanded it. We pay five times more for the price of a car to save the cost of gas. Every year we demand auto manufactures to change their tooling so we have something different to choose from. Not better but different. Perhaps it's time we drive vehicles that aren't new on the outside but improved on the inside. Millions are spent to make a vehicle "eye candy". Maybe that money would be better spent on making it more efficent.
Not all Canadians can be without personal transportation. Most can do, using them less. Perhaps raising the cost of fuel has it's merits. Once again people are looking at "econo" cars. Canadians have excepted the concept but Americans shun the idea. Perhaps it is because Canadians and Europeans pay more for their gas.
I drive for a living. I plan my routes carefully and never run the vehicle needlessly. I don't idle and I don't speed but I'm a rarity. People run their vehicles while waiting, talking or eating fast foods and complain about the cost of fuel. They probably got their house/apartment nice and toasty warm while they are away as well.

---
Expect little from life and get more from it.

"Not accusing. But this is trotted out everytime someone accuses Canadians of being prolific users. It's tiring......"

Sorry, but your fatigue concerning valid statements made in good faith is not my problem. Nice brush off attempt tho'.

"With increased efficiencies, not nearly as much as is thrown out the window today inthe form of heat......"

Heat from where? You do not specify. However I will point out that current electrical transport using aluminum wiring strung across towers wastes huges amounts of power every second due to resistance. Those are the same power lines you will use to power your maglev. What do you propose to do about that?

Myself, I'd prefer to use conductors inside supercooled pipes that take advantage of the extremely low resistance that comes from making a conductor a superconductor. But that's my solution, what is yours?

" How many "tracks" would your proposed line require to be most efficient?

Replace the road/rail system entirely, of course."

Uh huh...right. Obviously you haven't factored in just how big Canada happens to be. And how exactly would you pay for this? You don't get something for nothing.

And just an aside, after your replace all the roads, just what are we supposed to use to get around towns? Are we to walk and ride our bikes on maglev tracks as well?

"Sunlight, crack H2O, Burn it, Fuel cell it, recombine it. Like I said, we've had a hundred years to replace the inefficiencies of the automobile, and we haven't done it."

Sunlight...I see. And just how many heliostats will you build in order to compensate for the amount of solar energy Canada does not get by virtue of the fact that this country happens to be further north than other places that have done heliostat tests? Spain and Arizona come to mind.

The amount of energy required will demand an even bigger production structure. And that is not factoring in the fact that once you build said heliostats, other users will demand access to the power produced. That means even more heliostats.

That brings into play power storage units for those times, as in during the WINTER, when daylight lasts only 6-8 hours. How many of those do you propose to build?

I could go on, but I am sure you get my point. My own opinion is use geothermal, but that's my preference. For a really good example, look up what Springhill NS did with the old mines.

" What would you call high rises and multi floor apartments if not houses that have BECOME hills?

Not highrises. "Low-rises". Put 'em in the ground, where the temperature is a constant. Basic physics."

Why not "highrises"? We have the tech ON THE SHELF to make them far more efficient that they are currently, and what exactly do your propose to to with cities whose infrastructure happens to be UNDERGROUND, in the very places you want to put residential units.

Besides, who would want to live in a box,with no windows, no sunlight, under the ground, like a mole?

Sorry. Basic physics + what will sell = your mole concept is a non-starter.


---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

"The Weapon" - Rush