Student Post
by Wayneho Kam and Waynekid Kam
If Santa Claus came out with a "naughty or nice" list based on how well people treated the environment, who will be on the "nice" list? Who will be on the "naughty"? Have you ever wondered?
You can count on Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to be up there on the "nice" list this year. As the Nobel Foundation puts it, IPCC and Gore both did a phenomenal job regarding "their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change." Perhaps Bill Clinton will see his name on the "nice" list as well, for his eco-friendly presidential library and his plan with Wal-Mart to bring down prices for green supplies. Expect Canada to receive gifts from the oh-so-jolly Santa Claus; the country aims to protect an area as big as eleven Yellowstones from oil and resource exploration!
Who belongs under the "naughty" list in terms of environmental consideration? I'd say Donald Trump comes pretty close. The entrepreneur and business executive is eyeing a remote Scottish coastline, home to seven endangered birds, for his newest development pursuits. He plans to build two golf courses, a 450-bedroom hotel, 950 vacation homes, 36 golf villas and 500 upscale houses on the unspoiled habitat. Such an ambitious man, he is. Toyota Motor Corp. has gotten bad raps concerning the environmental quality of their vehicles and their failure to support a Senate energy bill that would set a 35 mpg average fuel economy standard by 2020. They will be on Santa's misbehaving list too, for sure.
With the Presidential Election approaching, where do the presidential candidates fall? Are they environmentally conscious or are they wrapped up in who should be allowed to get married? Well, consider this: On the same day a United Nations panel warned of inevitable human suffering due to climate change, all of the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates were invited to participate in a forum on global warming, energy independence, and the environment. Three Democrats and zero Republicans showed up.
But don't worry, Saint Nicholas will be making his list and checking it twice, and maybe, just maybe, people will start caring about the state of our planet soon enough...
Santa has 8 reindeer. Apparently this "green santa" can't even count.
Not surprising.
-Brad
www.clashofculture.com
Hey Guys,
Thanks for stopping by to blog at the Intersection. And thanks for the innovative Xmas twist on the traditional environmental scorecard. I had no clue what Trump was up to...yowsa.
I think we need to make student bloggers a regular recurrence, eh Sheril?
Don't forget about these green and not-so-green presents for under the Christmas tree:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/greener-electronics-rankin…
Another interesting post, and very timely for the season.
Talented people over there... The cartoon brought a chuckle.
Brad,
Santa's one reindeer sleigh is part of his effort to bring his operation into the "green" revolution. Reindeer eat CO2 consuming vegetation and emit methane, a very powerful (and smelly) greenhouse gas. Santa has reduced his UPGHG (Ungulate Produced Green House Gas) emissions by 87.5 %.
Since this reduces the sleigh's power to weight ratio by a similar amount Santa will be delivering toys to only 1/8th of the world's children. The good news is this will result in shutting down most of Santa's toy factories, a source of CO2 in the ever so sensitive Arctic. Please remember to give generously when approached by charities collecting for unemployed elves.
Also cutting down pine trees is decidedly un-ecofriendly. Don't buy a fake one either they are made from petroleum based plastics. But please this Christmas remember the true meaning of the Yule tide season. I recommend that you collect trash from local streams and rivers and fashion an alter to worship our true savior, Al Gore.
Hmm. Although I am not an infallible being, I think I might understand Santa quite bit better than the two authors here. If he were to create a "green" list, I sincerely doubt the IPCC, Al Gore, or Canada would be anywhere near the top of his list.
Need I remind you of Al Gore's house? I know it is old news now, but it does kind of tarnish his position as white knight of environmentalism.
Canada is much the same way. Or have we forgot what has happened to them in recent times as well? Perhaps I need to remind the authors that they have had a 27% increase in greenhouse gas emmissions they pledged to bring their output down to 5% below 1990 levels.
And then there is the IPCC. While they have completed many a study (I shudder to think of all the paper and electricity used to make their report)have they actually changed anything? Indeed, have they even advocated a change? It seems to me that the world has not changed since the release of the most recent IPCC report one bit.
But then again, I am just a naive high school student, unnacustomed to the ways of the big man up North. Who knows? Perhaps he hands out presents to such "environmentalists" afterall.
P.S. I assume a green Santa would not give out coal. What will he give to those on the bad list, the random print-off from Grist.org? Oh, never mind. That would waste paper, wouldn't it?
T., thank you for your comment.
The power coming into Al Gore's house is green, renewable power supplied by the Green Power Switch program (from the Tennessee Valley Authority), and it balances 100% of his electricity costs. Planned renovations of his 60- to 70-year-old house will include new upgrades, such as solar panels and energy-efficient windows. The Gores use compact fluorescent light bulbs, drive hybrids, and participate in two programs that reduce carbon emissions (e.g. buying carbon offsets). Their residence serves a large family, often hosts guests, and has home offices - naturally, their "carbon footprint" is consistent with the lifestyle.
Canada is committed to stabilize its greenhouse gas emissions with a series of government initiatives. The first step in actually trying to reduce carbon dioxide levels is to make the pledge (which the United States has not).
I suggest that you take a look at the online version of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report to get a further understanding of the climate change situation. The information provides a common scientific baseline and will guide policymakers to discuss an agreement in Bali to succeed the Kyoto Protocol. The report is drawn on the research of thousands of scientists, reviewed by 2,500 experts, drafted by several hundred authors, and adopted by consensus (countries accept the underlying science and cannot deny its conclusions). Confidence in humans having an impact on the climate has increased since the 2001 IPCC report. As a result, the U.N. Secretary-General has called on the U.S. and China to do more to fight the threat and more people are aware of the growing problem. States across America are pursuing policies that have climate benefits, which will later serve as models for federal action. For a complete list of legislation, click here.
I hope this clarifies things a bit for you. The IPCC, Al Gore, and Canada very well deserves the credit.
Wayneho -- Al Gore's "carbon offsets" have been shown to be a scam that goes directly back into his own pocket. I do agree with you, however, that Al Gore's "carbon footprint is consistent with [his] lifestyle." The lifestyle of a 21st century limosine liberal requires a 10,000 square foot home, heated pool, and private jets. But I'm sure those are more than balanced out by the compact flourescent light bulbs he installed.
Wayneho, I am quite grateful for your direct response to my post. However, I can't say I agree with your general conclusions on the subject. Neuro-conservative did a more than excellent job demonstrating why Gore would get a lump of coal for Christmas, beyond pointing out the damage done to the environment by such a materialistic life, I can't add much more to the discussion.
I am sorry, but I cannot see any evidence of Canada's "commitment" to halting CO2 emissions. I believe that it is best to judge men- and countries for that matter- not by what they say, but by what they do. By the fruits of their labors, if you will have it. Canada pledged to have emissions down by 5%. They have had their greenhouse gas output increase by 27%. That is the worst record of any country- even the big bad United States has not failed so miserably.
And then there is the IPCC. While I do not doubt their good intentions, the fact of the matter is, they have done little for the cause. Crediting the IPCC for environmental activism is akin to crediting Einstein for the surrender of the Japanese in 1945. Sure, Mr. Einstein did send a few letters on the subject; exhorting research into atomic power, but few credit him for the American victory over Japan, or even the invention of the atomic bomb.
Despite many an environmentalist's wish, it is the policy makers, not the scientists, that receive the credit for environmental triumphs. Of course this has a corollary: as Canada has shown, these same policy makers have to carry the blame for their failure as well.
Neuro-conservative, the claim that Al Gore's "carbon offsets" is a scam comes from the site of Bill Hobbs, a Republican blogger who uses Wikipedia as a source. I do not know how much of his statements are unbiased. The truth is, we all do not know enough of Gore's personal life and I am sure that no one is perfect. The decision to put Gore on the "nice" list is based on solid observations- him being proactive and taking on a global challenge.
T., it is obvious that the United States and China are more at fault for being the bigger emitters of carbon dioxide than Canada. Canada wasn't on the "nice" list for their emission levels anyway; it was for their massive land conservation.
To say that the IPCC/scientists have done little for the cause is far from the truth. Policymakers rely on various specialists to inform them of the science they otherwise will not know. Without the findings from the IPCC and the experts to communicate the report, how else would policymakers effectively make decisions? Senator Joe Lieberman certainly didn't design the Lieberman-McCain Climate Stewardship Act of 2003 by himself.
Waynekid -- Your comment is intellectually dishonest. Hobbs linked to Wikipedia merely to provide a definition of the term "carbon offset" for newbies. His main point is sourced to The Tennessean, hardly a mouthpiece for Republican National Commmittee.
Incidentally, you should ditch the habit of attacking people's ideas just because of their party affiliation. I know that you are a University student, so that might be difficult. But -- why not be the first on your block to actually be able to discuss ideas intelligently with people who disagree!
I never said that the US or China should be on the nice list. Rather I said Canada should not be on it. I believe that is classified as a straw man argument, my friend.
Your point is a bit more valid when you bring up the fact Canada is put on the list for protecting large swaths of land from industrialists. However, that one good deed hardly compares to the bad they have done this year. What is better: helping to stop a worldwide environmental crisis that could cause the deaths of thousands of species and millions of human lives, or protecting a barren strip of land from few oil tycoons? I mean, you put Al Gore up there just for raising awareness on global warming. Surely Canada's sins here out shadow its other achievements?*
You really have not disproven my point. Wasn't Einstein one of those "specialists" that informed the President (as well as various other policy makers of the time) of the science they would have otherwise not known?
*Then we have this news. It seems that the Canadians are hypocrites as well as environmental failures. Ha. Helping the environmentalists indeed. What a joke...
Hey Neuro,
We invited some college students on here to blog. Say whatever you want to me and Sheril, or about me and Sheril, but please lighten up on the kids, huh?
Wayneho and Waynekid,
I'm not only impressed with your post, but also in your thoughtful comments. We're proud of you guys and I enjoyed this creative approach that demonstrates who's 'green' in a fun and seasonal way. You've done a tremendous job and I encourage you both to keep writing!