I think "[t]he solution to the divide is to convince us that" the economy will indeed be wrecked, and you're just not mindlessly repeating spin and fearmongering.

So, how about some facts and analysis that can withstand scrutiny? I'll provide the latter if you provide the former.

Those of us who are skeptical are unwilling to see our economy wrecked on a supposition. The solution to the divide is to convince us that the supposition is more than just a popular fad. The say-so of reporters won't get you very far. Otherwise we will consistently vote for the party least likely to enact emissions legislation, all other things being equal.

On a slightly humorous note, that noted authority on climate change Al Gore, in his infinite scientific wisdom, has just declared the earth to be a small star. That's taking the Global Warming message to extremes, I'd say.

No, let's NOT acknowledge that, because it's simply not true. Most of the oil in the middle east (in Saudi Arabia in particular) is easy to extract with simple wells, of very high quality (i.e. low sulfur content) and requires minimal processing in order to be transformed into a usable product.

Now contrast that with the tar sands. The oil there is removed by environmentally devastating strip mining techniques. Separating the oil from the sand requires very intense processing, using tremendous amounts of energy and water. This processing also generates huge amounts of contaminated water and soil as by-products.

I'm not disputing your point on working conditions and transparency, but our oil is most definitely NOT cleaner.

Actually the international community actually did something about ozone depletion and acid rain (despite the whining at the time from the industries affected) and the threat was very real in both cases. It's a good precedent for doing something about Co2 emissions.

Overpopulation is arguably the most significant driver behind many of these environmental problems.

Jury's still out on the end of oil but certainly the easily exploitable sources appear to be drying up.

I'll agree with you though there was some misplaced hysteria about global cooling in the 1970's. That's why I think advocates of moving away from carbon-intensive energy should focus on other arguments bedsides global warming (notably the fact that it is a non-renewable energy source and it makes us dependent upon countries that it is not in our interests to be dependent on (i.e. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, etc.)

Jay Leno made an interesting point about the car which I think also applies to many things, including print media. He said that when the car was replacing horses people were afraid that horse breeding would disappear because there would be no need for it. Before the car horses were beasts of burden and were worked to death. When the car came, it liberated the horse from that duty and people could then appreciate the horse more leisurely.

With electric cars coming into the main stream market, regulations and restrictions on the gasoline car will become more lax allowing enthusiasts to pursue designs that weren't allowable before.

I'm sure something similar will happen to print media, where it won't be a mere commodity but rather a thing of beauty.

The same morons who claim Global Warming is a hoax are the same kinds of dolts who denied that cigarettes caused cancer in the 80s.

That sounds sensible. I just wish i could feel confident that our [and their] negotiators were working towards such a solution.I have an uncomfortable sense that there is no win win solution for all of us here, given the vested interest of all parties.

I've never been interested in reading magazines for some reason, and I didn't read newspapers because of the newsprint hands. Now I happily read the online versions. Sadly, Maclean's can't be downloaded to my Sony.

Do your bit for climate change–save a tree! Download your reading material. :)

I could flip that around and say what makes you think the big emitters will move once others move first. The Europeans capped emissions years ago and it's not as if the Chinese position has moved. But, at the end of the day if climate change is a global problem, then the Chinese and the Indians will have similar incentives to act as we do. Still, I think the debate is going nowhere if the conversation goes into how much emissions we should allow each country to emit. I think negotiators would be better off trying to get countries to agree to set a price on carbon in their countries through a carbon tax mechanism.

Prentice isn't an idiot – he knows this. Even if he doesn't believe AGW is a problem, he knows that if action is to be taken, the sooner the better. So, what he's said here isn't a stall. It's a very clear indication that the Conservative government never intends to take any real measures.

Why this is the case is clear – the base is in Alberta and Saskatchewan, where any efforts to curtail emissions would be felt the most. Alberta emits more CO2 than Ontario, despite having just over a quarter of the population. Just as any efforts to reduce emissions in the world require China and India, any efforts to reduce emissions in Canada require Alberta and Saskatchewan.

Federally with spending limits? Future considerations (see McLellan, Anne)

Yup. A fundamentally amoral argument. Like George W Bush after Abu Ghraib: "well, our torture wasn't as bad as Saddam's". Or a neighbourhood crack dealer: "well, if I stop, somebody else will take my place."

Honestly, I thought Canada was better than this. But nope – we're selling our souls and our international reputation for money. We elected two-dollar whores and we're turning into the same.

Some people in the country choose to bind themselves up to the energy economy and they take everybody else with them whether they like it or not. Not all Canadians.

The current government _chooses_ to abdicate any form of leadership and prefers to spread its legs for all comers to earn a cheap buck as long as some bones are thrown in. This is the Alberta mess of economic management on a national scale.

They will never lead on this file because they inherently believe that the future of Canada is actively promoting the regression of our economy towards a tin-pot resource economy that is incapable of producing our own goods and services, and appears to welcome the handing over of these industries to India and China through free-trade agreements so that Canada's economic future will forever be set in stone.

All this talk of "emissions targets" is just lip-service at best, and bald faced lies at worst.

Nothing on this file will happen under the CPC. Absolutely nothing.

I was making the point that, while Burtynsky is raising awareness of our dirty oil fields, even if he succeeded at getting every oil field in Canada to close, the world would still be dependent on oil from third world and mideast countries, where rules are extremely lax, no one is unionised, no one is allowed to trespass (let alone take aerial photos), etc etc…

It was a question of relativity – relative to Indian or mideast oil production, EB's pictures of western refineries are cleaner.

(As an aside, Suncor was probably investing at 15$ a barrel because it realised that the price couldn't possibly stay that low. And it didn't.)

From Wikipedia:

"# On the average, a person dies every second as a result of hunger – 4000 every hour – 100 000 each day – 36 million each year – 58 % of all deaths (2001-2004 estimates)."
# On the average, a child dies every 5 seconds as a result of hunger – 700 every hour – 16 000 each day – 6 million each year – 60% of all child deaths (2002-2008 estimates)"

Did it take you 15 seconds to read this? 15 people including 3 children have *starved to death* in that time. But it doesn't affect you, so I guess it's all grist for your smirking jackassery.

Unless @jwl is some new jargon that I'm not familiar with? Every time I see one of those abbreviations that I don't understand, it makes me feel so old… and I'm not even 30 years old!!

I know because Jolyon told me so. And he's totally a climate scientist or whatever, so he's equipped to interpret the data all by himself.

Suncor was profitable, and investing when oil was selling for $15/barrel.

Do some quick and dirty economics. Current oil sands production ~ 1.3 million barrels/day forecast to rise to 4-5 million barrels sometime out (forecasts vary). Say it would cost a company $5 /barrel to clean up its operations (water, air, CO2 emissions). That's like $6.5 to $25 million/day added industry expense .

if you were concerned solely with the corporate bottom line, how many lobbyists and p.r flacks do you think that could fund to avoid "costly" regulations?

You have got that right. Photos are not exactly to your point about oil fields but close enough.

http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictu…

You have got that right. Photos are not exactly to your point about oil fields but close enough.

http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictu…

However, what if Burtynsky took aerial photos of, say, Kuwaiti oil fields? Or Indian ones? Or Chinese ones? (although a handful of pics were indeed taken in third-world countries, granted)

Not only would he get shot in some of those countries, but the countries that would actually allow it, would result in pictures far, far more horrible than the ones of Canadian, US or Australian oil fields.

Yes, we have tar sands and oil fields. But let's at least acknowledge that exploiting Canadian tar sands is far cleaner than exploitation in third-world countries and the middle east – not to mention unionised workers, better work conditions, and transparency (such as allowing Edward Burtynsky to take pictures).

What's the sense of closing Canadian oil fields if the supply would be replaced by much dirtier fields overseas?