Skip navigation

Earlier discussion

Martin Mittelstaedt

Globe and Mail Update

Environment reporter answered questions ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Dark Green from Holguin, Cuba writes: Mr. Mittelstaedt, thank you for taking our collective future that much at heart. I believe some extremely important and interesting issues have been raised, today, which should be elaborated upon and documented so much more. May I suggest those are: 1. '... only about 25 per cent of emissions come from individuals. The rest are from industries....'; (Pareto's law) 2. '...the way that free markets could be harnessed to deal with climate change would be to have the full environmental cost of using fossil fuels embedded in the price of the fuel or in activities, such as deforestation, that release global warming gases. Currently, these costs are socialized, or deferred to future generations... I think rough estimations of the harmful impacts are possible...'; 3. 'I have two kids who are old enough to understand the issues...' 4. '...good books and websites out there on ways individuals can delay global warming.' 5. 'Many climate scientists and their professional associations are involved in the climate debate. Please see this link...'; 6. 'The Globe intends to follow the global warming issue in a big way this year, writing about the developments as they happen. There will be a lot of coverage later this week about the next report on the science of global warming, and I'd urge readers to watch for it...'? -- I pledge to be one of your very faithful readers... All the best.
  2. Scot Loucks from Pickering, Canada writes: Concerning Greenland.... This is straight from http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/

    'Greenland's climate began to change as well; the summers grew shorter and progressively cooler, limiting the time cattle could be kept outdoors and increasing the need for winter fodder. During the worst years, when rains would have been heaviest, the hay crop would barely have been adequate to see the penned animals through the coldest days. Over the decades the drop in temperature seems to have had an effect on the design of the Greenlanders' houses. Originally conceived as single-roomed structures, like the great hall at Brattahlid, they were divided into smaller spaces for warmth, and then into warrens of interconnected chambers, with the cows kept close by so the owners might benefit from the animals' body heat.'

    They do however mention that the original naming of Greenland was to entice settlers from Iceland.... we are talking A.D. 986, with changes occuring during the next 400 years. (archeologically proven).
  3. Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: 'adults have been quite stupid' in ignoring climate change and using a 'wind powered clothes dryer'. Nice sense of humour. we also use a wind powered clothes dryer and try to leave a small foot-print on the earth. I have learned much from elders in my life. They lived simply, frugally, and maybe had a more balanced approach to life. Good article, though.
  4. Steve (not the paunchy, controlling, paranoid Steve of Ottawa) from Alberta, Canada writes: I wonder if the guy who brings up 'all this talk about global warming is scaring my kids!' says the same thing about tobacco.... better not tell your kids that tobacco is bad - - in fact, encourage them to smoke to get over this 'irrational fear'. Sheesh. Time to face facts & get with it.
  5. Robert Mohid from Ottawa, writes: To Scot Loucks,

    The glacial sheet in greenland is more than 400 years old, so it is difficult to square that fact with the of conditions you describe in Greenland's past.
  6. W M from Canada writes: For those who think that Greenland was green when the Vikings were there, read Collapse by Jarred Diamond. Greenland was a little bit more green around some of the edges when the Vikings arrived, but only green enough to support a pretty low standard of living even by the standards of the day and only for a total of a few thousand Vikings. They died out because even that small number was more than the land could bear and because they refused to learn from the inuit and because the climate got somewhat cooler.
  7. Frank rabzel from Mississauga, Canada writes: I am currently reading an interesting book called Global Warming by Bily, Cynthia A. which offers opposing views on this issue.
    They seem to all agree about warming but differ on what causes it.

    Some say it is largely man contributed through carbon, CO2 emissions but other claim that the real issue is changes in solar radiation from the sun causing this and man-made contributions are minimal. They say it is not our SUVs causing this but we are along for the ride.
  8. Mr Fijne from Calgary, Canada writes: Populism and demagogy, it of course had to come to this one rich versus poor! Social solidarity... the euphemism for communism: and thanks to the Globe reporter who really is no scientist, the poors could pollute and get credit back thanks to the 30% who already pay 70% of the income tax... so tax us so we pay 100% and then what?

    As for the extravagant lifestyle of the rich... one has to smile at such naive and envious manicheism. Let's face it Gail Cooper, there are many more Chevrolets than there are Porsches, many more charter flights to Mexico than private jets and so many more just like you who expect the governments to steal from me what you cannot afford. But in the end, you can take it all lady since that would not give you an ounce of my mind...

    The politics of envy has finally found its new ideology!
  9. Scot Loucks from Pickering, Canada writes: Mr. Mohid from Ottawa; You are quite correct, much, much older that 400 years. As W M points out in the next post, when the Vikings were there, over 1000 years ago, it was only the fringes that were habitable.

    But you both missed my point.

    In the interview with Mr. Mittelstaedt he sluffs off a question regarding Greenland being green. He rightly points out that 'Greenland' was so named as a way to inttice people to move there from Iceland, but ignores the actual question....

    I was trying to answer the question(in theory), the climate change that happened 1000 years ago was global cooling.... was that because the vikings all gave up their SUV's? They stopped heating with coal? They found a way to harness our farting livestock? Or is it just a normal cycle of heating and cooling by Mother earth?

    Mr. Fijne; We rarely agree... but good post.
  10. Scot Loucks from Pickering, Canada writes: I guess fully moderated means 'no discussion allowed' eh Globe and Mail?
  11. Michael Knuckey from Oakville., writes: I suggest your journalist visits the Ontario Science Centre to educate himself on the various warming and cooling cycles that have affected Canada over the ages. Of course the climate is changing. It always is. Civilized Canada would not exist today without the warming cycle that caused the ice sheet that once covered much of Ontario to retreat. The increase in atmospheric CO2 is certainly a concern but much more important is other pollution ,whether it be atmospheric or aquatic. Spare us the histrionics of violent climate change.
  12. Scot Loucks from Pickering, Canada writes: Michael Knuckey from Oakville., writes: I suggest your journalist visits the Ontario Science Centre to educate himself on the various warming and cooling cycles that have affected Canada over the ages. Of course the climate is changing. It always is.

    Exactly sir. I would also suggest he Google 'Vikings Greenland glaciers'. Before sluffing off a valid question he didn't agree with.

    Pollution is the enemy. Now we have a new enemy called left wing media enviroweenies.
  13. Manue Fernandez from Canada writes: most of those who reap the windfaflls of financial benefits from a wasteful society are ideologically inclined to deny anything that threatens the glamorous spoils of what has been until a blank check to a disposable way of life. It is fascinating to watch how people that consider themselves to be 'educated', people who have an inner or overt pride, at being able to manipulate language ( grammar) with an effective, impressive ( but essentially hollow) ideological-religious abandon - Conrad Black for instance...- have always lambasted, insulted and demonise whoever had the guts to stand for common sense in the ocean of waste that Canada and the United States, are. Years ago Europe started to open the eyes - and its purse- to find a way of dealing with climate change while - up until a few hours ago..- Ayn Rand's ideologues hated to its very core the very thought of considering that it is sheer stupidity ( suicide) to keep screaming an orgiastic-wasteful 'My Way' to Nature...
  14. ivan more from Canada writes: The Koyot treaty is actually a giant wealth redistribution scheme, socialism on aglobal scale that taxes wealthy, idustrialized countries by forsing them to buy carbon emission credits from poorer countries through a vitrual(phony) carbon market, while not reducing the world's pollution by one single molecule. Also Koyoto will actualy accelerate globalization by encuraging companies to move their factories from highly- regulated Canada to mass-polluter countries like China and India: thus lowering our standart of living. In effect it's socialism disguised as science by our evinoristas I urge every Canadians to take a look at the Koyoto Protocol and ask yourselves how creating a carbon emission trading bureaucracy makes this planet even one degree cooler.
    Posted 29/01/07 at 9:57 PM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top