What does “extending habitability” mean? It explains “sustainability”. I prefer to sometimes call it “survivability”, because without the delicate balance our ecosystem and societies are teetering on, there’s no possible way seven billion people will survive even a short term major disruption.
Our environment has one shot to work in letting billions of humans develop into whatever civilization we can be, speaking in a geological timeframe. For most of human history, we’ve adapted to changes in climate and locality, because there’s always been another continent to move to, better technology invented, or a few thousand to a few million people die off. I’d rather that last option not happen again, which is why I’m an environmentalist.
Anti-environmentalists (distinctive from non-environmentalists who could be neutral/apathetic) think the only threat to human civilization is when they run out of money (or murderous political ideologies like Nazism or Stalin-ism). They are actively hostile to the very clear idea that human (and most life) on the planet is governed at a base level by uninterrupted food, clean water & air supply. They’ve come to be indoctrinated by the idea that a job, for which they are paid money, is the only/best way for these needs to be met. It’s a fact that many jobs in use now presently rely on the degradation of natural systems that are critical to delivering uninterrupted food, water and air. If we’re to extend the habitability of Earth, we have to find a way to ensure our jobs don’t put an end to the systems our money is intended to buy for us.
It’s like taking money to live in a house with daily food provided, on the condition that the neighbourhood will be lit on fire randomly, food imports may stop for a week without notice, and one day your house will burn. So I don’t buy the BS that environmentalists want an end to “jobs”, and “economic prosperity”. Yet the Minister of Threatening Canadians, Joe Oliver, would have you believe that environmentalists are “radical” for wanting to moderate a system where you’ve presently agreed your economic system, your figurative house, will burn.
Who is really against economic prosperity for all Canadians? It’s not environmentalists who are set out to end prosperity – we’re out to redefine it. Prosperity comes when we (and our descendents) can succeed and be happy in perpetuity, not only today.
—
Hat tip to Scott
The majority of influence on our energy policy is foreign, and I’m not talking charities.
Saskboy's Abandoned Stuff 
A very interesting post =)
You seem so out of touch with reality it boggles the imagination. The entire post is a strawman of leftist interpretations and thus merely an act of self-justified indignation.
From globull warming, except it’s not warming now, to climate change, except climate has ALWAYS changed, to climate weirding, except there’s nothing weird about it, to now sustainability the eco-luddites simply want their religious beliefs practiced by all… talk about obvious totalitarianism personified!!!
It is beyond hypocritical when eco-whackjobs decry the existance of industries that they themselves use to improve the quality of their lives.
Seriously, where do you think the metal and exotic materials that make up your bike come from? Where does the energy to produce that bike come from? Did you build it yourself or was it imported? Where do your clothes come from? Your computer you use to spout your manifestos and complaints? Where does the copper for electrical lines come from? Your cell phone?
Congratulations, you have become the first Canadian generation that isn’t as well off as their parents. All due to a mentality that in part forced business elsewhere… re: occupy unemployment. The ecomentality of Malthusian fear has left the EU a basket case with America not far behind. Oz is already looking foolish.
There’s no need to redefine prosperity… prosperity is what it is. By ‘redefining’ it you simply describe something else. In this case poverty.
Oh and by the way. The government has no problem with charities receiving foreign funding. They have a problem with paid advocacy groups (lobbyists) posing as charities for purely tax breaks. At least the ethical oilsands ‘foreign owners’ pay their tax share. ***from your above cite*** “Tides Canada has reported $7.8 million in foreign income over the years, according to CRA tax returns. That makes it the 16th-largest recipient of foreign money.
However, U.S. tax records show a different amount.
Annual filings to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service from tax-exempt and non-profit organizations show the Tides Canada Foundation has received more than $63 million from wealthy American foundations. That would put it third on the list of Canadian charities that received funding from outside the country.”
“It is beyond hypocritical when eco-whackjobs decry the existance of industries that they themselves use to improve the quality of their lives.”
You’ve missed the point, as usual. There’s a constant degredation of quality which you seem to admit with your statement:
“you have become the first Canadian generation that isn’t as well off as their parents.”
“At least the ethical oilsands ‘foreign owners’ pay their tax share.”
No, they don’t. Oil is the most heavily subsidized industry in the world. They don’t even pay fully for their own R&D, despite being among the most profitable corporations in the world too.
“However, U.S. tax records show a different amount.”
Oh really; show us?
You are out to lunch. There is not “a constant degredation of quality” as that would imply that 1912 would be higher quality than now… 1812 better than that and 1712 reigning supreme. That is patently rediculous. Here is the ‘improvements’ you are saddled with, from the eco-bastion of Germany!! “The energy-saving light bulb ends up as hazardous waste, too much insulation promotes mold and household drains are emitting a putrid odor because everyone is saving water. Many of Germany’s efforts to protect the environment are a chronic failure, but that’s unlikely to change.” http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/germany-s-environmental-protection-policies-fail-to-achieve-goals-a-821396.html
The ethical oil sands pay a cumulative $55 billion in government revenue… 10% of our national debt… yearly. They enjoy the SAME tax breaks EVERY Canadian business enjoys. Even a fool wouldn’t be so ignorant of the labels on gas pumps showing how much tax is taken for each litre of fuel. Here in Ontario it’s $0.55 per $1.31 Perhaps, as you say yourself, you confuse Canada with “in the world” or is this another intentional strawman ;) ! Feed in renewable tariffs pay between 4 and 20 TIMES their market value. Thats pay!!!! Wholesale!!! Yet you say “Oil is the most heavily subsidized industry”??????????? Are you that ignorant of economic fact? (citation provided if requested)
Lastly, when you ask ““However, U.S. tax records show a different amount.”
Oh really; show us?”, it’s from your above citation “not talking charities”. Don’t you even read your own citations?
Through your bizarre assumptions, you sure know how to turn reality on its head. Why would you assume that I meant everything was better in 1712? Undeniably, there’ve been both advancements made, and permanent (from an individual human’s perspective) losses since that specific time.
Fuel taxes go toward supporting the purchase of more gasoline, not specifically to improving quality of life, Redjeff. Feed-in tariffs are SUPPOSED to pay more than market value, duh. When a presently tiny industry gets a F-I-T, you think that compares to the world’s biggest getting tax money for everything from R&D to infrastructure, just because they pay a portion of obscene (one-time) profits as gag money to governments? You’re ridiculous, as always.
As for the BUSINESS der Spiegel, there are obvious answers to each of those perspectives that fit right with my point.
“The energy-saving light bulb ends up as hazardous waste,”
Buy LED, saves more power, no mercury.
“too much insulation promotes mold”
Not that, it’s too much moisture. Ventilation must also be improved.
“and household drains are emitting a putrid odor because everyone is saving water.”
Composting toilets, and greywater systems should be built in instead of traditional plumbing. Anytime drain traps don’t have water you’ll get sewer gas, it’s not a new discovery.
—
Point out the link, I don’t have time to dig through them all again for your sake. And even if they do take in more money, it’s doesn’t matter what they take in, it’s how they use it.
“Point out the link”????? Here is YOUR link, for the 2nd time!!!!!!! “Lastly, when you ask ““However, U.S. tax records show a different amount.”
Oh really; show us?”, it’s from your above citation “not talking charities”
NOT TAKING CHARITIES. You wrote it, don’t you know what you’ve written?????
[ADMIN note: I didn’t write that, I said “not talking [about] charities]”. Here’s what you left off that explains the difference that doesn’t even matter. It’s not what comes in that matters, it’s the receipts going out that do. If it were the other way around, then we’d have a problem.
“Ross McMillan of Tides Canada said wording on the CRA tax form changed in 2009 to include a line for revenue received from all sources outside Canada. Prior to this charities only reported foreign funding under “other gifts.”
Since pre-2009 CRA tax forms did not distinguish foreign funding from other income, a search of the agency’s database does not turn up a higher number for the Tides Canada Foundation.
Read more: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20120510/canadian-environment-conservation-charities-foreign-funding-tax-return-analysis-120510/
“]
But as you say yourself “And even if they do… it’s doesn’t matter” of course it doesn’t matter because you don’t need honest justification as an ecozealot. You have your religious faith as justification.
[ADMIN note: I don’t have a religious faith.]
I love your more rediculous ‘statements’…
“Fuel taxes go toward supporting the purchase of more gasoline” did you just make that up?
[ADMIN: They pay for roads, which promote driving opposed to alternative transportation methods that use less (or no) gasoline. GM’s highway lobby, and governments made up that system, actually.]
“there’ve been both advancements made, and permanent (from an individual human’s perspective) losses since (1712)” name 1 loss.
[ADMIN: Soil fertility. Would you like more? Fish stocks. Another? Clean drinking water. Enough? Of course not you’ll prattle on with new excuses, without accepting one fact presented because you know each defeats your position.]
“a portion of obscene (one-time) profits as gag money to governments?” do you mean the word taxes?
[ADMIN: No, not taxes. One-time, non-renewable, resource royalties because the materials private industry is profiting from is owned by the people who sell the use of them at stupidly low rates (in Canada) given future expected value.]
Finally, if “there are obvious answers to each of those perspectives” why didn’t the eco-whackjobs think of them BEFORE they became a problem????
Oh yeah, cuz the eco-nuts don’t think!!!
PS Oh the eco-irony!!! ” Official claims Fisker Karma to blame in Texas house fire” http://www.autoweek.com/article/20120508/CARNEWS/120509860 I guess safe cars aren’t required as long as they’re tagged “green”!!!
[ADMIN: Way to go way off topic with a straw man. Who is the “whackjob”? You are.]