Rate This Topic

Average: 0/5

Advertisement

Share & Contact

We encourage you to write to your local and national media to elevate the conversation on climate change and climate change solutions. We would love to read what you've posted. As a member, click on 'add a blog post' below and paste your post there.

Your feedback is welcome. Please feel free to contact Cheryl McNamara, Carbon Response Administrator, by clicking: Contact Cheryl McNamara

Recently Updated
Another Exchange with Senator Patterson - in Defense of Bill C-311 Last Updated on 2010-11-25 00:00:00 Dear Senator Patterson, In your message to me you spell out what the Conservatives have been arguing all along. The bill’s targets are unrealistic because we’d have to shut everything down. We have a problem, don’t we? The carbon emission reduction targets set in Bill C-311 were recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – the body that collects the findings of more than 2,000 scientists from approximately 130 countries who study the climate. The findings from 2007 IPCC report are determined at 90 percent probability, which we know must be taken very seriously. The truly scary thing is that it appears that with new findings, the 2007 report is already out dated. When the IPCC issued its 2007 report, it stated that the world must prevent a global temperature increase of 2 degrees Celsius to avoid runaway global warming. We have since... More »
Email exchange with Senator Patterson Last Updated on 2010-11-18 05:22:25 Dear Senator Patterson,   With all due respect, I have been following this bill very closely. For months we have been waiting for Senator Neufeld to pick up debate on this bill and despite inquiries from the Liberal Senate he has failed to do so. You claim that it was not the Conservative Senate’s intention to “avoid the usual thoughtful process.” I am sorry, but Neufeld’s actions suggest otherwise.   I understand that Senator Mitchell was suggesting that the bill move to committee when the government in the Senate called for its vote. A great deal of confusion followed. It is up to the Government in the Senate to call for a vote, yes? If the Government in the Senate was truly interested in the usual thoughtful process, would it not make sense to pick up debate on the bill or move it along to committee?   Prime Minister Harper’s... More »
What happened to Bill C-311? Last Updated on 2010-11-18 05:01:02 I sent the following to Harper, all leaders of the opposition parties and my MP. The letter was also sent to all Senators.     Dear Prime Minister Harper,   I am still in shock over the surprise vote on Bill C-311 and its demise. This bill was passed by the elected House of Commons and deserved debate and committee review in the Senate. My understanding is that only the Government in the Senate can call for a vote on a bill. Why did Conservative Senators delay debate on this bill and why was it put to a vote before due process? It does not matter what the Government thought of it. The majority of MPs voted for it and it deserved debate and review in the Senate.   This action casts a negative light on Canada’s democratic process, and leadership on one of the most pressing issues of our time.   As a citizen, I am appalled by the Senate’s... More »
Response to Vaclav Klaus' op-ed piece in the Financial Post Last Updated on 2010-10-22 06:12:16 The following was sent to the editors of the Financial Post regarding their printing of Vaclav Klaus' op-ed piece, http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/10/20/vaclav-klaus-an-anti-human-ideology/: I was rather surprised to learn that the Financial Post printed Vaclav Klaus’ op-ed piece claiming that environmentalists support an anti-human ideology, and that his opinion on climate change is right despite the overwhelming evidence that does not support his view. I have up until now been impressed with the Financial Post’s coverage of the transition to a low carbon economy. Your coverage of clean energy development and innovation has been very informative. I understand that you feel it’s important to provide coverage on both sides of an issue. In certain cases this balancing act is not applicable. You wouldn’t include an op-ed piece from a racist, for example,... More »
Response to G&M - Pour more cold water on the IPCC Last Updated on 2010-08-31 05:54:34 Response to Globe and Mail's Pour more cold water on the IPCC  - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/pour-more-cold-water-on-the-ipcc/article1690681/ No matter how bullet proof the IPCC becomes it will not stop people who deny global warming from picking it apart. They don't like what it has to say. Period. But it constitutes the findings of more than 2500 scientists from around the world. And these scientists and those who want to prevent runaway global warming are up against multi-billion dollar industries, such as fossil fuel, eager to brake any action to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. This means spending a lot of money on PR firms and think tanks to find ways to constantly question the science. The Koch Industries are big spenders in this area - http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer Keep in mind that there were a few... More »