Posts from our progressive community

Wednesday Evening Links

accidentaldeliberations - Wed, 09/10/2014 - 17:18
Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Scott Clark and Peter DeVries criticize the Cons' choice to prioritize right-wing dogma over sound economic management:
What should Canada do? For starters, the passive approach isn’t working. In the face of global economic uncertainty and a secular decline in growth, Canadian policy makers need to get at the levers that can strengthen growth at home.

...Of course we have options — they just happen to be ones that clash with the Conservatives’ hands-off economic orthodoxy. The Harper government is committed to lower taxes, lower spending, balanced budgets and smaller government. But why should Canadians accept these as the only options? There’s nothing inevitable in this climate about years of sluggish growth. It’s a choice — a political choice.

So with its energies directed at the coming election, the Harper government finds itself stuck in a dilemma of its own making. It wants to run on a record of good economic management but it wants to define that record as narrowly as possible — as simply eliminating the deficit. In fact, as we argued last week, the government could kill the deficit this year, one year ahead of their political schedule. But getting rid of a deficit you created doesn’t make you a good economic manager. Healthy economies grow at a healthy rate. Ours isn’t.
Why not stabilize the debt ratio at 30 per cent of GDP? Why shouldn’t a government borrow to make new investments when ten-year, thirty-year, and fifty-year interest rates are at historically low levels? Surely that’s what future generations would want us to do. - And Stephen Kimber reminds us of the yawning gap between Harper and the Canadian public - while recognizing that it's also worth demanding that a new government actually improve on the Cons' attitude toward what brings us together as a country:
What are Canadians most proud of? Well, start with medicare, followed by international peacekeeping and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Not to forget multiculturalism, bilingualism and the Canadarm.
But...there is a jangling disconnect between what Canadians say they believe in and the values Stephen Harper has enshrined in Canada's laws and practices since his party won the majority of seats in the 2011 election.
[Harper has] cut the netting from under our social safety net, slashed public services, done a 180-degree foreign-affairs pirouette from global honest broker to ideological barking dog, glorified the military while denigrating veterans, stealthily imposed a new unilateral medicare funding formula to eviscerate national health-care standards and download costs on to the provinces, imposed tough-on-crime legislation and mandatory minimum sentences despite evidence they don't work, attacked the courts, eliminated the long-form census, muzzled scientists, destroyed important data, emasculated environmental protections, audited charities and environmental critics, cut taxes for the rich while leaving gaping loopholes for offshore tax cheats, gutted the CBC, passed Orwellian legislation like the Fair Elections Act to make elections anything but…

The list goes on. When I asked on Facebook recently "what a post-Harper government would need to do to undo Harper's disastrous re-making of Canada," I got close to 100 responses with at least three dozen different specific suggestions.

All of this means the scheduled 2015 federal election should not simply be another rascal-changing exercise.

The 60 per cent of us who didn't vote to radically change our country's laws and values must now ask those who would seek to replace Stephen Harper not simply what they will do for our country but what they will undo to give us back our country.- Meanwhile, Tavia Grant reports on the financial squeeze facing far too many Canadians. Frances Woolley discusses the gender politics of taxation. And Carol Goar notes that the Ontario Libs' spin about addressing poverty isn't being matched with actions:
Anti-poverty advocates have learned to welcome crumbs from the Ontario Liberals.

That is what they got in the five-year poverty reduction strategy unveiled by Deputy Premier Deb Matthews last week. The 56-page blueprint consisted of recycled promises, long-term goals, soothing language and self-congratulations (despite the fact she fell far short of her last five-year target.)

But social activists lauded the government for its good intentions, its comprehensive framework and its long-sought acknowledgement that homelessness is a provincial responsibility. They politely overlooked the fact that the minister did not raise welfare rates, did not provide a nutrition allowance, did not address the shortage of child care spaces and did not offer rent supplements.

Do these advocates really speak for people living in poverty?

It seems unlikely. Good intentions don’t fill empty stomachs or pay the rent. Families in need don’t care which government does what.

Does easy praise encourage the government to aim low?

That seems highly probable. As long as Matthews can win public plaudits for saying what “stakeholders” want to hear, she needn’t risk bold action. As long as those who claim to represent the poor are onside, she needn’t back up her words with money. - Rank and File documents the Honour Our Deal movement which is looking to preserve the pensions earned by municipal workers in and around Regina. And Brigitte Noel reports on the heinous conditions faced by a temporary foreign worker who has since died on the job.

- Finally, PressProgress duly mocks Gwyn Morgan - not long ago one of the key figures behind one of the world's most corrupt businesses - for complaining that he and his ilk have managed to give corporations a bad name.

Rob Ford and the Mike Tyson Fiasco

Montreal Simon - Wed, 09/10/2014 - 16:59

I suppose by now I shouldn't be surprised by anything Rob Ford says or does. 

Because that ghastly Con has been crawling through a sewer from the moment he came to office.

And the very sight of him offends me, as it should all decent people.

But I still thought that getting an endorsement from Mike Tyson was another low moment. 
Read more »

Hey Washington. If You Want Us to Stand Up to Putin, Why Not Sell Us the Plane He Doesn't Want Us to Have?

The Disaffected Lib - Wed, 09/10/2014 - 10:32

The events of the past few months have made us again think of the unthinkable.

A resurgent Russia, talk from its president about the use of nuclear weapons, the deployment of new missiles, subs and strategic bombers.  Sure we did a fair bit to egg this on but that doesn't change the fact of where we find ourselves today.

Which naturally brings me back to the F-35, the overpriced, underperforming and woefully overdue wunderplane from Lockheed.  The hype has now pretty much run its course.  We know that, to the extent it ever was stealthy, it was only frontal aspect.  It was still visible to air defence radars from the sides, from the top or bottom, from the back.  We now know it was stealthy for one band of radio frequencies but not others and our targeted adversaries know that too and have developed multi-band radars that can pick it up.

So, between the bad guys hacking the contractors' secrets and computer code, and the extended passage of time lost to delays, the F-35 is more expensive than ever but less of a bargain than ever also.  Is this any time, then, to be gutting our military budgets for decades in order to saddle ourselves with America's second best?

What we need is something that's really fast, with supercruise and thrust vectoring.  We need a plane that can carry a reasonable weapons payload over a significant distance.  It would be nice to have a plane with all-aspect stealth.  We need a plane that is truly multi-role, capable of handling Canada's air defence needs in a rapidly remilitarizing Arctic.  We need a plane that has redundant systems, twin engines.

So why should the US try to stick us with something we don't need?  Why won't the US allow its allies to get a new deal from Lockheed to purchase an updated version of the F-22 Raptor, one updated to incorporate the electronic wizardry of the F-35?

That would be the plane that Vlad Putin would rather Canada not have at its disposal in the Arctic.  Surely that's reason enough that the Americans should want us to have it.

A Link Between Sleeping Pills and Dementia?

The Disaffected Lib - Wed, 09/10/2014 - 09:56

The BBC has a report on Canadian researchers who have discovered an apparent link between sustained use of a broad family of sleep and anxiety medications and the development of dementia.

The drugs are from the family of benzodiazepines.  Wiki has this list of the medications.

Many of us have to deal with sleep disorders at some point and many physicians like to prescribe solutions.

A Hail Mary Pass From Andrea?

Politics and its Discontents - Wed, 09/10/2014 - 09:49

Some might interpret it thus, in that Ontario NDP leader Andrea Horwath, desperate to retain her job under increasing demands for her resignation, thinks she has found something to distinguish herself from the Liberals.

She is launching a campaign against government sell-offs of public assets in as she works to shore up her leadership amid a challenge from the left wing of the party.

Desperate times call for desperate measures, I guess:

The NDP socialist caucus held a meeting last Saturday and called on Horwath, who faces a mandatory leadership review in mid-November, to resign after waging “the worst NDP campaign since Bob Rae attempted to defend his infamous social contract in 1995.”

“There was no mandate to veer to the right of the Liberal Party in a vain attempt to appeal to Conservative supporters and the business class,” said a news release from the caucus, pointing to Horwath’s pledges like removing the HST from electricity bills and tax credits for job creation.

As a diversionary tactic, her opposition to the proposed government sales to raise money might make some sense, but the devil is always in the details. Consider these two statements:

Horwath said her new push against privatization, following last week’s government announcement on the sale of the Queens Quay LCBO lands, heralds the “fundamental values” of the NDP and downplayed the dissent.

Yet in the next breath:

Horwath said even the prospect of selling a portion of any government assets to private investors is “a pretty slippery slope” but did not rule out supporting the sale of the LCBO lands on the waterfront to developers.

“We’re prepared to look at the details.”

For me, the above contradiction epitomizes what is wrong with Horwath's leadership. Just as in the last election, where party principle was sacrificed at the altar of expediency, her ambiguous stand on the sale of assets reflects once more a rudderless party that would be better off under fresh and principled vision and leadership.

And it's never a good sign when they start asking and answering their own questions:

“Did we do everything right? Absolutely not,” Horwath told a news conference Wednesday, noting the New Democrats held steady at 21 seats. “Did we do everything wrong? Absolutely not.”

It would seem that concerned progressives will soon be posing other more penetrating questions that Horwath, when called upon, will not be able to answer as glibly and easily. Recommend this Post

The Climate Change Defence. District Attorney Drops Charges Against Anti-Coal Protesters.

The Disaffected Lib - Wed, 09/10/2014 - 09:03

In May, 2013, Ken Ward and Jay O'Hara used their lobster boat to block a  ship carrying a load of coal for a power plant in Somerset, Massachusetts.  At trial the pair intended to argue a form of the defence of necessity.  They planned to argue that coal burning worsens the climate change that threatens our planet.

Only they didn't get their day in court.

Instead, the district attorney, Sam Sutter, dropped the charges.  Outside the courthouse Sutter explained, "Climate change is one of the gravest crises our planet has ever faced.  In my humble opinion, the political leadership on this issue has been sorely lacking."

The Perspective That Age Bestows

Politics and its Discontents - Wed, 09/10/2014 - 06:47

Unlike some, I do not bemoan the passage of time. True, I am of that generation known as 'the baby boomers,' but while I am at times mildly bemused about certain things ('How can it be 50 years since the Beatles first played in Toronto?'), I was never beguiled by the notion that we would be young forever. Yes, I try to keep fit and hope to be active throughout the rest of my years, but ceding my place to others in both the workplace and the larger world bothers me not in the least. As Margaret Wente recently noted in a surprisingly (for her) good column, the real surprise is that there is no adventure remotely like aging.

Probably one of the biggest benefits (and potentially one of the biggest curses, depending upon one's frustration threshold) of growing older is the perspective that age bestows. The experiences of a lifetime offer a tremendous filter by which to assess the things that we see and hear, the people we meet, the 'truths' that are offered to us, etc. It was with this filter that I read Tim Harper's column the other day in the Toronto Star.

Examining the Harper regime's decision to send troops to Iraq as 'advisers' to help in the fight against ISIS, Tim Harper seems to lament the complacence about terrorism felt at home:

When Abacus Data asked Canadians voters to rank the importance of 13 different issues in a poll done last month, security and terrorism ranked 13th, cited by a mere six of 100 respondents as one of their top three concerns.

He seems to suggest we should be alarmed for reasons of domestic security:

We know there have been at least 130 Canadians who have travelled to join radical fighting forces, including the Islamic State. At least 130. That number was released early in the year and other estimates put the number much higher.

We know that at least 80 of them have returned to this country, with the training and the motivation to cause much harm here.

And he reminds us of this:

Even as daily dispatches of Islamic State barbarism, mass executions, beheadings of two Americans with a Briton now much in danger, and genocide come into their homes, Canadians apparently believe it is something which merits a baleful shake of the head.

While not an outright endorsement of the government's decision to dispatch troops to Iraq, it seems to me that the columnist is providing the context within which that decision makes sense.

It is an analysis with which I profoundly disagree.

And that's where the perspective offered by both age and history becomes most relevant. Having lived through times when the rhetoric of threat has been used to frighten people into compliant thinking, surely some critical reflection is warranted here. I remember oh so well how, during the years the U.S. was fighting a losing war in Vietnam that cost so many lives and exacted so many grievous injuries, the justification was 'The Domino Theory', the idea that if South Vietnam fell to the communists, a cascading effect would ensue throughout southeast Asia, and would end who knew where.

But the fact of the matter is that the Vietcong were employing a form of warfare that was not amenable to traditional methods of containment, thereby rendering the war futile, and the lives lost and injuries sustained meaningless.

The same is true about Afghanistan. Ignoring the lessons of history provided by Alexander the Great, the British and the Russians, the Americans and their allies plunged headlong into battle, again with the same results. As to the egregious failure of Iraq, the same lessons apply.

Yet here we are, back at the beginning, once more embracing the hubristic belief that hydra-headed terrorism can be contained. While it may be humbling and frightening to admit, there are some things over which we have no control.

Thus endeth a hard lesson.
Recommend this Post

More Poor Choices?

Northern Reflections - Wed, 09/10/2014 - 06:02

Yesterday, the Harper Party released its latest campaign ad. It was Stephen Harper's steady hand at the tiller, the ad claimed, that has guided Canada through the economic storms of the decade. But Scott Clark and Peter Devries beg to differ. The economy, they write, is dead in the water:

The dismal job creation numbers over the past 12 months merely show a long-term trend becoming entrenched. The economy has been in a growth and employment slump since 2010, with economic growth and employment growth falling year after year. The government’s response to this stagnation has been to repeat the same, threadbare talking point: that a million jobs have been created since 2008.

The Harper government has been in denial about Canada’s poor economic and job performance for some time. The overall unemployment rate remains mired at seven per cent and the unemployment rate for young Canadians has been stuck between 13 and 14 per cent. Two key numbers — the labour force participation rate (the number of people employed as a percentage of the population) and the employment rate (the ratio of working people age 15 and older to the population) — are both below their 2001 and 2008 levels.

Too many Canadians have stopped looking for work altogether. Most of the jobs created over the past year have been part-time; in fact, Canada seems to be degenerating into a part-time employment economy with stagnant labour income. The government seems oblivious. Finance Minister Joe Oliver’s only jobs strategy is to hope for a recovery in the United States. He believes, apparently, that there’s nothing the federal government can do to strengthen domestic demand and job creation except stick to the plan to eliminate the deficit by 2015-16.

Oliver’s predecessor, the late Jim Flaherty, spent years sniping at the U.S. and other G7 countries for failing to take action to eliminate their deficits quickly. Washington ignored him, taking the view that a rapid reduction of the temporary stimulus from the 2008 recession would undermine the recovery.
And guess who turned out to be right? The United States -- not without obstruction from Harper's cousins, the Republicans -- made better choices. It is, after all, a matter of choices:

The Harper government is committed to lower taxes, lower spending, balanced budgets and smaller government. But why should Canadians accept these as the only options? There’s nothing inevitable in this climate about years of sluggish growth. It’s a choice — a political choice.
And if their latest ad is any indication, the Harperites are betting that Canadians will make the same choices in 2015.

Wacking the Pinãta

Dammit Janet - Wed, 09/10/2014 - 06:00
C36 — the Harper government, with its usual doublespeak flair, titles it the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act — is just one MASSIVE pinãta of a Bill.  And when it is whacked, all sorts of goodies come tumbling out. Like Don the Plumber's John School™ - but more on that, later.

No no no.  This pinãta is NOT what you think it is.  Get your mind OUT of the gutter.

This pinãta was previously a commemorative War of 1812™ genuine papier mâché artillery cannon replica produced for its never-ending celebrations and now recycled by the ever-so thrifty Harper government. It was spray-painted Barbie™ pink to please the ladies. 

"What's in the C36 pinãta?" you may ask.  Although it was thoroughly wacked at the House of Commons Justice Committee proceedings, it appears that more goodies are popping out for the Senate committee studying the bill.

MacKay, speaking to reporters, said the Conservative government decided to take a calculated risk that any Charter challenge would ultimately fail.

That’s largely because, he said, the law is a legal shift towards outlawing the purchase of sex and viewing prostitution as the exploitation of “vulnerable” women, not the nuisance targeted under the now-unconstitutional laws against street prostitution or bawdy houses. 

The bill doesn’t “enable prostitution” but it will still allow those who “claim to freely choose” prostitution to do so safely, work indoors or hire body guards, said MacKay. It gives “legal immunity” to prostitutes, and so directly “responds to” the Supreme Court of Canada’s concerns in its Bedford ruling in December, MacKay told a Senate committee studying the amended bill. [...]

MacKay said he made his own assessment after discussions with “other lawyers and judges.” He shrugged off the prospect of more court battles.

“I’ve been around this place a while,” MacKay said. “I’ve practiced law, I’ve argued both for and against certain Charter submissions. But I don’t suffer from Charter constipation.”

So. The unCONstipated Minister for Lady Parts and Weaponry Peter MacKay claims that sexworkers will get "legal immunity". 

Some senators, who are also lawyers, are not so sure how that "legal immunity" would apply.  

Wait!!! Here's a thought. Why can't the C36 pinãta offer "legal immunity" to ALL women and girls who suffer any form of sexualized violence? Most harassment and rape isn't perpetrated by clients or johns. Shouldn't every woman and every girl be *rescued* from daily sexualized violence too?

One man speaking to senators was adamant that clients should all attend John School; his contention was that "fathers and grandfathers" who buy sex services are completely transformed by the program.  Presumably none of them ever sexually harass or violate ANY woman EVER again.

(Hell, why not send every Tom, Dick or Harry to John School?  That's the ticket; compel all boys and men to complete this program; those who actually don't coerce women (or pay them) to have sex can mentor the ones who do.  Surely that's the logical outcome to C36, if the premise is actually what the Cons pretend it is.... Aaaaand, make sure CPC MP Bob Dechert is sitting in a desk at the front.)

Then there's senator Plett — so thoroughly repulsed and disgusted by sexwork that he would deprive sexworkers, specially those who have chosen this work, of legal protection and their right to safety. 

Employees in high-injury-risk occupations as varied as firefighters, healthcare professionals, cops, stunt performers, soldiers and pro athletes choose their work because of the high income, the benefits and the opportunities they derive from it.  But Plett doesn't see any of that; he is affronted that defiant women won't be shamed nor called victims, thus he wants them to be threatened, endangered and harmed.

Sour grapes! Bitter candy! Mouldy sweets! Senator Donald Plett wants those BAD women who don't want want to be rescued, PUNISHED!

My co-blogger fern hill looked into Plett's background. Hint: he's no lawyer but some of his best Con friends are...

The biggest, sparkliest, juiciest goody in the C36 pinãta is that mythical whopping 20 Million $$$ that would ostensibly fund "rescue" programs that Evangelicals and Prohibitionists who support the bill would be awarded.  And Con MP Joy Smith's Foundation would get a chunk of that money too, with no pesky CRA audits I bet!

My suggestion: 

The Senate committee continues to hears presentations today.

In case you've missed it, go read @kwetoday's brief to the Senate standing committee on legal and constitutional affairs, here.  It exposes what a hollow, empty sham C36 really is. 

Stephen Harper and the Ghost of Captain Franklin

Montreal Simon - Wed, 09/10/2014 - 03:36

It was just two weeks ago that Stephen Harper was talking about the search for the lost Franklin expedition.

And how he couldn't wait to find, in his macabre words, "the skeleton of Franklin slumped over the helm."

And today he did. 

Or a least a team of researchers did find one of the ships. 
Read more »

Why All Progressives Should Support Scotland's Independence Struggle

Montreal Simon - Wed, 09/10/2014 - 00:53

It's been hard trying to explain that what's going on in Scotland is a bigger story than many progressives in this country can imagine.

And that they should rejoice at the last minute surge of the YES side, because they are fighting for our kind of values, and we can use some of the lessons of their campaign to defeat the Harper regime in the next election.

Because as soon as I mention the word "referendum" some people start muttering incoherently, and when I mention the word YES they think Quebec separatists. And either start screaming, or moaning, or mumbling stuff like:

No. No. Not again. Not the NEVERENDUM !#@!!!!

Which is a pity, because even though its happening in a small country it really is a huge story.
Read more »

Mount Polley, BC Environment Min goes all DEFCON-1

Sister Sages Musings - Tue, 09/09/2014 - 21:39

Apparently, the BC Environment Minister has noticed that her complete lack of action on the Mount Polley tailings disaster is not sitting well with British Columbians.

The Mothercorp reports today a stern sounding rebuke from the Ministry to Imperial Metals to “stop, I say STOP” releasing effluent down what used to be Hazeltine Creek . . . → Read More: Mount Polley, BC Environment Min goes all DEFCON-1

I did not have Intercourse with that financial group!

A Creative Revolution - Tue, 09/09/2014 - 20:57
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman....."

 -Bill Clinton

Before we begin:

in·ter·course ˈintərˌkôrs/ noun  
  1. communication or dealings between individuals or groups.   "everyday social intercourse" synonyms: dealings, relations, relationships,association, contact

So yes, I am correct, if you thought summin else? Tsk tsk.....  

And this strikes me as a Bill Clinton kinda whopper. 


From the Really? files:

A leaked contract shows that B.C. Premier Christy Clark once served as chairwoman of a B.C. company she now touts on official government business, raising concerns over ethics and conflict of interest.

Did she or didn't she?

The Premier initially denied any relationship with RCI Capital Group and Mr. Park. “I don’t have one,” she said before acknowledging that “He’s been on a couple of trade trips with us.” The B.C. Corporate registry in Victoria shows that Ms. Clark was registered as a director of the company alongside Mr. Park.

Someone toggled her memory switch however, with some of that dreaded......Dun dun dun dun.....DUN!  DOCUMENTATION.

The Premier did not elaborate until she was shown the contract on company letterhead bearing her signature. “Did I tell you I was never paid for any work and never did?” said Ms. Clark, before clarifying that she was a company director.


This gets better.......Oh yes you knew it would?

In 2007, while Ms. Clark was chairwoman of RCI Capital Group, the company was also a client of Burrard Communications – according to a leaked Confidential Government Relations Plan prepared for RCI.

Provincial records show that Mr. Marissen, along with lawyer Andrew Wilkinson, were lobbying the B.C. government on behalf of RCI Capital Group. Mr. Wilkinson was appointed by Ms. Clark to cabinet in 2013.

Also mentioned was her connection to a Lobbying group called Burrard. 

Clark's ties to the lobbying firm for Enbridge appeared to have ended entirely when she became Premier, but she later raised eyebrows by appointing Ken Boessenkool, a former Enbridge lobbyist and advisor to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, as her chief of staff in 2012.  


I think Ms. Clark has had intercourse with multiple financial groups and lobbying firms.  :) I ponder, if it would be a good idea to look into the resumes of all her past appts more closely? We may then get a great idea of which financial groups and lobbying firms they were. 






Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

accidentaldeliberations - Tue, 09/09/2014 - 20:05
Connected cats.

New Conservative ad, now with added bonus tracks

Creekside - Tue, 09/09/2014 - 15:03
from me, celebrating Stephen Harper's economic record.

Blurb accompanying original Con ad : We're better off with Harper
"With over 1.1 million net new jobs since the recession, Canada’s economy is on the right track – thanks to the strong leadership of Stephen Harper and Canada’s Conservatives."God bless, now.

What Happens When Earth Says, "I'm Outta Here."

The Disaffected Lib - Tue, 09/09/2014 - 11:10
Earth may have had just about enough of us.

One indication that we may be outstaying our planetary welcome is the spike in atmospheric greenhouse gases in 2013.  Part of that reflects our increased use of fossil fuels.  The other part is more worrisome by an order of magnitude.

The Earth, it seems, may have had its fill of absorbing our emissions.

Concentrations of nearly all the major greenhouse gases reached historic highs in 2013, reflecting ever-rising emissions from automobiles and smokestacks but also, scientists believe, a diminishing ability of the world's oceans and plant life to soak up the excess carbon put into the atmosphere by humans, according to data released on Tuesday by the United Nations' meteorological advisory body.

The latest figures from the World Meteorological Organization's monitoring network are considered particularly significant because they reflect not only the amount of carbon pumped into the air by humans, but also the complex interaction between man-made gases and the natural world.  Historically, about half of the pollution from human sources has been absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial plants, preventing temperatures from rising as quickly as they otherwise would, scientists say.

"If the oceans and the biosphere cannot absorb as much carbon, the effect on the atmosphere could be much worse," said Oksana Tarasova ...chief of the WMO's Global Atmospheric Watch program.

"The changes we're seeing are really drastic," Tarasova said.  "We are seeing the growth rate rising exponentially."

The long and the short of it is that, if our biosphere is losing its capacity to backstop us on our carbon emissions, then even the most radical emissions reductions targets - which we're not even close to meeting - are dangerously inadequate.

"It's the level that climate scientists have identified as the beginning of the danger zone," said Michael Oppenheimer, a Princeton University professor of geosciences who was not involved in the WMO report.  "It means we're probably getting to the point where we're looking at the 'safe zone' in the rearview mirror, even as we're stepping on the gas."

 The WMO report also incorporated data on ocean acidification stemming from our greenhouse gas emissions.  The data shows the rate of acidification is unprecedented over at least the last 300,000 years.  Given that every second breath you take represents oxygen generated by our oceans you might want to pay attention to this little problem.


Subscribe to aggregator - Posts from our progressive community