Is it no wonder with the mid east loonies running around that people don't want to lose their energy industries without some other course of action that won't further erode the economy.

It's about time people started seeing how ridiculous the whole thing is when survival is at the helm. Maybe now we can get sensible solutions instead of LIB elitist snobbery. Al Gore? Sit down.... countries like China & Russia have alot more catching up to do before the LIBS point fingers at America. For sure...DRILL! DRILL! DRILL!

PARIS - There is both growing public reluctance to make personal sacrifices and a distinct lack of enthusiasm for the major international efforts now underway to battle climate change, according to findings of a poll of 12,000 citizens in 11 countries, including Canada.

Results of the poll were released this week in advance of the start of a major international conference in Poland where delegates are considering steps toward a new international climate-change treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.

There already are reports emerging that some countries, such as coal-dependent Poland, are pushing for special treatment to avoid making major commitments to slash carbon emissions during a global economic downturn.

Less than half of those surveyed, or 47 per cent, said they were prepared to make personal lifestyle changes to reduce carbon emissions, down from 58 per cent last year.

Only 37 per cent said they were willing to spend "extra time" on the effort, an eight-point drop.

And only one in five respondents - or 20 per cent - said they'd spend extra money to reduce climate change. That's down from 28 per cent a year ago.

The Canadian results, from a poll of 1,000 respondents conducted in September, were virtually identical to the overall figures. There are no comparative figures for Canada because Canadians weren't included in the global study in 2007.

The 11 countries surveyed were Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Malaysia, Mexico, the United Kingdom and the United States. There were 2,000 respondents surveyed in China, including 1,000 in Hong Kong.

The survey was conducted as part of a joint collaboration between the financial institution HSBC and environmental groups, such as the Earthwatch Institute.

"There's consumer reluctance that's creeping in, and we've seen that some are being stunned into inaction by the enormity of the task," said Earthwatch executive vice-president Nigel Winser.

Results of the poll suggested that 55 per cent of respondents in the 11 countries said their governments should be doing more by investing in renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar and wave power.

That's more than double the 27 per cent who wanted their governments to participate in Kyoto-style international agreements to reduce emissions.

In Canada, the same portion favoured renewable-energy options, while 32 per cent supported collective international efforts.

"People believe governments are focusing too much attention on indirect actions that pass responsibility for climate change onto others, such as increasing taxes on fossil fuels, encouraging individual environmentally friendly activities and participating in international negotiations, such as the Kyoto Protocol," the report said.

"More needs to be done to inform consumers about measures such as green taxation or carbon trading to help them understand how tangible these can be."

The poll helps explain why outgoing Liberal Leader Stephane Dion had so much difficulty during the election campaign trying to sell his Green Shift platform that proposed a carbon tax in order to encourage emission reductions.

Earthwatch's Winser said the silver lining in the poll was that it stresses public dissatisfaction with the performance of all governments.

"We welcome this survey because it shows that individuals want their governments to do more."

HSBC was unable to provide the poll's margin of error.

Efforts to support global climate-change falls: Poll

http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/news/story.html?id=f0a1687c-decd-4c72-9d0e-7e6dd92d4ebe

WOW! These people don't get it do they? LOL



Lawyers call for international court for the environment

A former chairman of the Bar Council is calling for an international court for the environment to punish states that fail to protect wildlife and prevent climate change.

By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
Last Updated: 1:29PM GMT 28 Nov 2008

Stephen Hockman QC is proposing a body similar to the International Court of Justice in The Hague to be the supreme legal authority on issues regarding the environment.

The first role of the new body would be to enforce international agreements on cutting greenhouse gas emissions set to be agreed next year.

But the court would also fine countries or companies that fail to protect endangered species or degrade the natural environment and enforce the "right to a healthy environment".

The innovative idea is being presented to an audience of politicians, scientists and public figures for the first time at a symposium at the British Library.

Mr Hockman, a deputy High Court judge, said that the threat of climate change means it is more important than ever for the law to protect the environment.

The UN Climate Change Conference in Poznan, Poland this month is set to begin negotiations that will lead to a new agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol in Copenhagen next year. Developed countries are expected to commit to cutting emissions drastically, while developing countries agree to halt deforestation.

Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, has agreed the concept of an international court will be taken into account when considering how to make these international agreements on climate change binding. The court is also backed by a number of MPs, climate change experts and public figures including the actress Judi Dench.

Mr Hockman said an international court will be needed to enforce and regulate any agreement.

"The time is now ripe to set this up and get it going," he said. "Its remit will be overall climate change and the need for better regulation of carbon emissions but at the same time the implementation and enforcement of international environmental agreements and instruments."

As well as providing resolution between states, the court will also be useful for multinational businesses in ensuring environmental laws are kept to in every country.

The court would include a convention on the right to a healthy environment and provide a higher body for individuals or non-governmental organisations to protest against an environmental injustice.

Mr Hockman said the court may be able to fine businesses or states but its main role will be in making "declaratory rulings" that influence and embarrass countries into upholding the law.

He said: "Of course regulations and sanctions alone cannot deliver a global solution to problems of climate change, but without such components the incentive for individual countries to address those problems – and to achieve solutions that are politically acceptable within their own jurisdictions – will be much reduced."

The court would be led by retired judges, climate change experts and public figures. It would include a scientific body to consider evidence and provide access to any data on the environment.

Most importantly, Mr Hockman said an international court on the environment would influence public opinion which in turn would force Governments to take the environment seriously. He said: "If there are bodies around that can give definitive legal rulings that are accepted as fair and reasonable that has its own impact on public opinion."

Friends of the Earth welcomed the idea.

A spokesman said: "We think any institution that is going to promote and help people enforce their right to a clean and healthy environment is a good thing."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/3530607/Lawyers-call-for-international-court-for-the-environment.html

Sounds like one step further into the "one world gov." movement. MORE world courts.

There should be NEW laws. How about an easy few. Pollution is created by humans and consumption.

Step 1. STOP making more babies.. OVER Population! How many kids does AL GORE have? lol

Step 2. Stop consuming so much. 50 bottles of NAIL Polish? 20 sticks of lipstick? 5 TV's in one house where only 2 people live? A new car EVERY 2-3 YEARS? CHEAP, I mean REALLY CHEAP JUNK Furniture? Computer Desks out of particle board and fake plastic wood? Get back to REAL wood! REAL Metal! DISPOSABLE should be outlawed! Just WHY do you think ANTIQUES are JUST THAT? They are OLD, They STILL WORK! They are used by many generations of people. Guess what.. It only took a few trees to make that one product. It takes MANY trees and oil products to make those 4 desks that you will own over the coarse of your life..

Step 3. More people live longer than before. Causing more to be consumed over the life of a person.

These are hard facts. NOW, are we really gonna say, "Ok, you used up all your life points. You can pass away?" Are people really gonna give up buying cheap stuff? Are people who LOVE the EPA and WORLD gonna stop and say, "I don't believe in having children because the world is overpopulated. LETS ADOPT!!"

Doubt it!! hahahahaha

So I never had any kids, does that mean I'm doing my part for the environment?

Maybe a right step for the future! But next look at the products in your home that never get used or what you throw away. Our "Eco Footprint" is amazing.

As I said. Throw away society. But what is worse is a replacement product has to be made and shipped and put on the shelf.

I might use a lot of wood, (professional woodworker also), but my desk will last my full lifetime. It even went through a flood when my water heater BURST! IF it was a cheap piece of plastic, (petroleum byproduct), covered particle board, (made in japan), then I would have to have thrown it away and purchased a new desk. Nope. I let it air dry outside and it's 100%.

I never told my customers to do this.....

I'm a computer consultant by trade and for decades people where saying, "keep your computer running. Don't turn it off." WHY? I'll tell ya why. Back in the early days there was a hard drive by the model# ST-251-1 it was a MFM based hard drive. The "manufacturer" (not listing), put a lubricant on the platinum to increase life. This actually decreased life of the drive because that lube became tacky after so many hours. The heads would rip off the platters and bye, bye data. With drives being $450.00 at that time. People looked at the pocket book.

Believe it or not. My computer case is also one I used with an ORIGINAL Pentium processor. I paid $98.00 for the case. Here it is, OVER 10 years old. I have a P4 3.4 gigahertz in it now. I've saved over 300.00 on case upgrades by not having to purchase them. PLUS some cheap plastic case would end up in the recycling bin and more fuel used to make more etc...

There is just something about buying quality and working with quality. Really, it doesn't have to cost all that much more, even in the beginning. Like the case. It was only $50.00 more than the cheap one. I made my desk from solid wood. It did cost quite a lot to make. But one somewhat like it would have run me $2000.00 more. So really, I SAVED money and SAVED the environment!

Heck, my car is even a 95 model. People keep asking me when I'm going to get a new one. WHY? The air conditioner is COLD! it has a VERY small footprint for pollution. And it RUNS good. WHY buy a new car?

Have a great Day Everyone!