Environment
Earth Day March Reclaims the Streets
Earth Day brought back some of its good old environmental activism, as Toronto Climate Campaign and Streets Are For People staged a rally at Yonge-Dundas Square at noon today.
Over 300 people filled the public square that, ironically, is devoid of much greenery. They called on the Harper government to implement Kyoto, introduce mandatory emission reductions and support green energy.
What did you do to celebrate Earth Day?
A spirited parade followed the rally, heading down Yonge St. to Queen St. and west along to Spadina, at which point they made a u-turn in the middle of the intersection, signifying the desire for a u-turn on climate change.
While some cyclists and pedestrians joined the parade and the cause, I caught a lot of bewildered motorists and passers by wondering what all the fuss was about. Is Earth Day that passe now?
The parade then headed back east to Queen and John St. where musicians played on and people continued to revel in the sunshine, as they got to reclaim the streets for pedestrians, even if for only a short time.
In the square I spotted a young woman sporting a "Don't Trash My Planet" slogan t-shirt picturing Oscar the Grouch coming out of his trash can (see photo on right).
Liz Oliver, 16, hopped on a Greyhound bus from Guelph, Ont. for the rally and march, along with her two friends Kali Robinson, 16 (in purple) and Meg Labrown, 17 (in blue).
They all picked up the necessary placards and noisemakers upon arrival at the square.
Near the front of the parade was Shamez Amlani, 38, riding what he calls his "five-wheeled beast of peace," a reconstructed India-style pedicab (photo on right) that he got from Parts Unknown, in Kensington.
The Petition Car joined the parade (see top photo) and was pushed along the parade route, which was a feat in itself.
It'll be interesting to see what's done in the year ahead with all this momentum from today.
After all, shouldn't Earth Day be every day?
Photos by Roger Cullman.
Discussion
39 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
The planet is undergoing Global Climate Change... this is not the same as Global Warming... This is an expected phenomenon. We'll reach a max temperature in a few years and then a cooling period will begin, a cycle that has been going on from ice age to ice age for quite some time.
Global Warming is as much buzz word that people want to buy into because it makes them feel better about themselves. It's like recycling... Given the amount of pulp that comes from tree farms, there's no need to recycle paper... we gain nothing and in the end use more energy recycling the paper. We have to power the buildings, the machines, put people to work at menial jobs, drive trucks that spew pollution around the city... it makes no sense... It's society feeling guilty for the actions of the past and getting that little bit of peace of mind... It's a joke.
They were a weird mishmash of political views, many of them conflating random other left-wing positions with climate change. One guy led us in a chant of "jobs not bombs" (what?). Another one ran a long impassioned plea that we must dismantle capitalism utterly before we can save the environment. "Capitalism and environmentalism are incompatible," he claimed.
Activist culture is so frustrating. I mean their hearts are generally in the right place (most activists and anti bad things and pro good things) but so much of the energy is so counter-productive.
"It'll be interesting to see what's done in the year ahead with all this momentum from today."
What momentum?
Hey Tyler, I sat and laughed at your comment.
Mac, you raise an interesting point, energy use should definitely be considered. However, the point of recycling isn't energy efficiency, it is waste diversion. I would support more reusable containers rather than recycling; that would be more efficient and it would still divert waste.
Steve, your "100 years of pollution from the industrial revolution and cars and waste" obviously had no effect on the thousands of cycles of global warming/cooling that occurred prior to the last century, nor is it likely to significantly delay or mitigate the next cooling cycle. Stop for a moment and try to get your head around the scale of global climate, and you'll see how little of it has to do with human energy consumption and waste.
Ben, you are the one that is wrong. The research data does not support the IPCC's assertions as to the supposed causes of climate change. It's important to remember that the IPCC are politicians, and despite what those politicians want you to believe the consensus among scientists is very much the opposite.
Here are just a few of the scientists who have stood up against global warming hysteria:
Dr. Edward Wegman--former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences--demolishes the famous "hockey stick" graph that launched the global warming panic.
Dr. David Bromwich--president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology--says "it's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now."
Prof. Paul Reiter--Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute--says "no major scientist with any long record in this field" accepts Al Gore's claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.
Prof. Hendrik Tennekes--director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute--states "there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies" used for global warming forecasts.
Dr. Christopher Landsea--past chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones--says "there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity."
Dr. Antonino Zichichi--one of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming models "incoherent and invalid."
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research--says the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."
Prof. Tom V. Segalstad--head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo--says "most leading geologists" know the U.N.'s views "of Earth processes are implausible."
Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists," says much "Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change."
Dr. Claude Allegre--member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: "The cause of this climate change is unknown."
Dr. Richard Lindzen--Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right."
Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science's Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometria project says "the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."
Dr. Richard Tol--Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time "preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent."
Dr. Sami Solanki--director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun's state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: "The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures."
Prof. Freeman Dyson--one of the world's most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are "full of fudge factors" and "do not begin to describe the real world."
Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen--director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun's behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2.
for a donkey, ..I wonder how many of earths trees were cut down to make the signs that read "Earth day" "lets save the planet" "don't waste resources" ect.. lol.
"So long, and thanks for all the fish"
http://video.titantv.com/content/00010110/video.aspx
You remind me of a religious zealot... You are blindly accepting something without thinking about who or where it is coming from. You have your belief and you are right, no matter what anyone says... Just because the majority believes something, doesn't make it right... 99.9% of people could believe something and it still isn't right. People used to think the Earth was flat... and that the Sun revolved around the Earth..Were they correct simply because the masses believed them?
You say that you are talking to a wall, yet I feel like I am the one talking to the wall... Diane provided plenty of quotes arguing against global warming... you dismissed them with a wave of your hand... You can read more here -- http://www.computerdefense.org/2007/02/03/the-theory-of-global-warming/ but again you'll wave it off...
Really? How so?
I'll confess to a deep distrust of politicians, marketers and others whose livelihood depends on manipulating the facts, but that hardly qualifies as an ideology.
And when I see politicians and marketers lining up on one side of this debate, while climatologists and other scientists line up on the other, I'll side with the scientists. That's not really an ideology either.
And when I see the rhetoric of the politicians and marketers devolve into emotional spin (describing others as "global warming deniers" to recall antipathy towards "holocaust deniers")... cheap insults (stating that only "crooks and kooks" would question anthropogenic global warming)... outright lies (claiming that there is a "scientific consensus" in favour of anthropomorphic global warming)... and classic con artists' manipulations (insisting that there is no time for study or debate, that we must act as we are told without hesitation)... well, I feel decidedly ideology-free in comparison to others in this debate.
Here's the sum of my environmental ideology: I feel it is stupid of us to squander resources and to live in our own waste. We have harmed many of our species as a result, and if we continue to live this way, we will harm even more. We must use our heads to make human life on Earth sustainable for as long as it takes for us to expand to other planets, or risk dying out.
Panicking about global warming is not using our heads.
Nice try, Galileo (or at least in your mind).
- So, that pile of plastic waste the size of the state of Texas floating out in the middle of the Pacific Ocean is no big deal then, right? Yeah, we've had no effect on the environment.
And yes, Tyler, I do wave you off. people like you bore me with your typical "Oh, you sound like a religious zealot who'll believe anything."
Again, you're having problems with scale. The Earth's surface is 510,000,000 sq. km. Texas is 697,000 sq. km, or 0.0014 of that.
Furthermore, it's hardly a "pile". The density of the matter in the water is too low to be photographed, which is why you can't seee it on Google Earth. If collected, all the garbage would fit into a reasonably large landfill.
And the Pacific Gyre (as this region of blackwater is called) was there long before the Chinese starting dumping their trash into the ocean. Humans just added plastics to the stagnant mass of rotting fish and vegetable matter slowly swirling around in there.
Isn't learning fun?
Are you always so condescending? Learning IS fun, you should try it yourself.
It's a ripple effect, that "small" pile of garbage and plastic breaks down and gets into the food supply.
Whether or not, or to what extent, our pollution is changing global temperatures, there are countless other undisputed reasons we need to stop polluting and rethink how and why we maintain that kind of lifestyle.
And Diane, your attitude isn't winning anyone over.
I am condescending to people who don't even bother to check their facts before posting, and then insult other people who do.
"Who knows, maybe someday, all of us will ba as "smart" as you even."
Maybe someday, Steve.
"And Diane, I'm not "in a panic", but I hardly see anything wrong with people using and consuming less to reduce waste."
Me either, and I wrote almost exactly that in a previous post that you apparently haven't bothered to read.
rek: "And Diane, your attitude isn't winning anyone over."
I have no expectation of winning over anyone who takes offense at being proven wrong. Reality is not a popularity contest.
Dinosaur 1: "What's all the racket?"
Dino 2: "Oh, just a bunch of pre-historic tree-huggers going on about some coming "Ice Age".
Dino 1: "Ice Age? Man, there's just no proof, they're all just brainwashed by that AlGorasaurus."
Let me try to rephrase what she is saying towards another global plight. Do not go to war before you know the facts.
We don't need to bomb Afghanistan and Iraq to kill a Saudi... feel me?
If we know ALL the facts we can be much more equipped to solve the problem. In the meantime, YES consume less, support eco-friendly companies, recycle, hug trees etc etc.
What we don't need is to put all our eggs into one basket when in the end that basket may be empty in the end. Think of it this way... What if you're BOTH wrong? What if our environmental problems are natural, or worse caused by something totally unrelated to this conversation. That would mean we've spent decades, by then centuries tackling a non-existant problem in the name of activism and politiks.
All Diane is simply saying is, learn first, prove second, fight third. Unfortunately (like the Kyoto activist) we oft do this in a mangled order of fight first, learn second, if by then it matters (which it often doesn't), prove third.
> And Diane, your attitude isn't winning anyone over.
You're bad examples aren't going to win anything over. Acid Rain is real. Pharmaceuticals in fish are real. When I say REAL I mean PROVEN.
We haven't even scratched the surface of understanding on our current global climate problem, yet you've made up your mind. This is much scarier to me then someone like Diane saying she'd rather see the facts first then decide if what the politicians and unrelated activists (jobs not bombs?) are saying is true.
It's called scientific process, or logic or common sense... However you decide to label it.
What exactly are you people who are so against the "global warming facists" or "ignorant masses" as you like to call them, afraid of. What is it? You don't want to lose your SUV? You're afraid of some curly light bulbs? What? These aren't Manson-Family kids knocking on your door. And really, when have we had any HONEST discussion about Global Warming without Exxon or GE paying a group of scientists off to call Al Gore an "enviro-nazi"?
And amazing, did we get all the facts before this war? Hardly. So, when it comes to sending your kids off to war, forget the facts...but global warming it, "Whoa, now just a minute, I want all the facts". I love it when someone is against something they say, "I want ALL the facts". I can tell you cmoking causes cancer, and then you'll find a two-pack a day'er who lived to be 90. I could tell you that being shot will kill you, but you can find someone who survived that too. So, what facts would you like? Melting glaciers not enough? The shrinking ice-cap doesn't bother you? "No, no, I want ALL the facts, I want the sea at my ankles and acid rain eating away at my skin. I don't wanna put all my eggs in one basket". I got news for ya' , all of your eggs are in one basket, unless you can live on Mars. Which scientist will stand up and say, "Yes, it's real" before you finally believe it?
Seeing as you refuse to actually read anything (You either have the worst comprehension EVAR or you're being selective)
I'm simply going to copy/paste what I previously wrote to some of your most current points.
>How exactly, is signing the Kyoto Treaty putting all of one's eggs in one basket?
>In the meantime, YES consume less, support eco-friendly companies, recycle, hug trees etc etc.
>What exactly are you people who are so against the "global warming facists" or "ignorant masses" as you like to call them, afraid of. What is it?
Nobody is against it Steve. No one is calling you "global warming fascists" or "ignorant masses". Slow down before you type.
> You don't want to lose your SUV? You're afraid of some curly light bulbs?
- Don't own an SUV and I'm definately not afraid of losing one.
- My entire house is outfitted with 'curly lightbulbs'
>What? These aren't Manson-Family kids knocking on your door. And really, when have we had any HONEST discussion about Global Warming without Exxon or GE paying a group of scientists off to call Al Gore an "enviro-nazi"?
I believe Dianne was attempting to have an HONEST discussion about global warming. Leave your conspriacy b/s at the door, it's not very honest at all.
>And amazing, did we get all the facts before this war? Hardly. So, when it comes to sending your kids off to war, forget the facts...but global warming it, "Whoa, now just a minute, I want all the facts".
I'm against the war Steve. It was an example to illustrate a point. Don't take things so literally. I think we should have had all the facts before that too.
It IS possible to learn from our mistakes Steve.
>I love it when someone is against something they say, "I want ALL the facts". I can tell you cmoking causes cancer, and then you'll find a two-pack a day'er who lived to be 90. I could tell you that being shot will kill you, but you can find someone who survived that too. So, what facts would you like? Melting glaciers not enough? The shrinking ice-cap doesn't bother you? "No, no, I want ALL the facts, I want the sea at my ankles and acid rain eating away at my skin. I don't wanna put all my eggs in one basket". I got news for ya' , all of your eggs are in one basket, unless you can live on Mars. Which scientist will stand up and say, "Yes, it's real" before you finally believe it?
Breathe Steve, Breathe. We're just trying to have an honest conversation over here about Global Warming. It's okay that other people have a different opinion than you, but that hardly qualifies your assinine statements of baseless assumptions on how 'we all are'. Starting to sound a little Hitler'ish Steve.
good grief.
Whatever. You say you're trying to have a converstaion and then you pull THAT one, and you call me assinine.
So let's say there's no global warming, or it's 100% the sun's fault, or melting is how glaciers reproduce, whatever. That doesn't wipe the slate clean, we still have to deal with acid rain and deforestation and reef death and sudden colony collapse and toxic rivers and on and on.
In the end I think you'll find we can either do what's necessary to fight global warming, or we can do what's necessary to fight all of the environmental issues, and end up in the same, better place.
That was my point. Diane and the "nothing to see here" set attack the global warming issue and forget the arm-long list of other issues that need to be dealt with in pretty much exactly the same way.
Oh, and Keven, where did you read my position on global warming? Go ahead and find something to quote before *you* make up your mind about what other people think.
You Godwin'd yourself, by the way.
More on that <a href="http://www.torontolife.com/blog/spectator/2008/apr/08/stephen-brunt-and-globe-and-mail-unwittingly-adher/"; target="_blank">here</a>.
What we're talking aobut here isn't so much recycle, reuse etc etc, we're talking about something labelled as global warming, which may or may not be totally unrelated to your above points, but we don't know. Which IS the entire point.
>keven: I know acid rain is proven and real, that's why I used it as an example of OTHER reasons to change what we're doing to the environment. Global warming isn't the only environmental issue on the table, not by a long shot, but it's the one getting all the attention.
I agree that those are other reasons to change, again nobody is saying otherwise, but what you're saying is something along the lines of: We should kill all snakes cause some snakes are poisonous and everyone thinks that killing snakes (at the moment) is a good idea (simpson's reference). At least that's how you're coming across to me.
>but it's the one getting all the attention.
And some of us choose NOT to be reactionary about it and are still doing our part in being consciense of the situation.
From energy to personal consumption and almost everything in between, I'm completely aware of the current state of things and do everything I can to help.
If some asshat on a blog tells me I'm probably mad cause I can't drive my SUV or whatever other baseless stereotypical assumptions he was making, he deserved my response.
It was not meant as hyberbole, it was literal and not a rhetorical statement. Me, "calling-out" someone b/c they are stereotyping people based on assumptions is not Goodwin's Law, it's simply defamatory and close mindedness and where prejudice starts (hence the hitler statement). Would it be better if I said he was acting like Rob Ford? Would that make it less of Goodwin's Law? Every reaction has an equal or greater reaction. That is a fact. Make baseless assumptions about things and you open yourself up, plain and simple.
The only thing my statement 'proved' was that Hitler used similiar tactics of assumptions based on stereotypes (assuming everyone that doesn't believe in global warming is a naysayer on environmental issues <sarcasm>is amazingly intelligent</sarcasm>
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's most likely a duck.
Godwin's Law is totally irrelevent to this. I did not call him a nazi OR call him Hitler, I said his BEHAVIOUR was 'hitlerish'.
You can read more about what YOU'RE doing <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_perception";>here</a>.
You may want to pay particular attention to the 2nd paragraph.
People who argue that global warming isn't happening or that it's natural never, ever, ever, ever, EVER, acknowledge that there are about 11 thousand OTHER reasons to do all of the SAME things proposed as ways to combat global warming. Deforestation and strip mining aren't ONLY about carbon reserves. Smoke stacks aren't ONLY about putting CO2 in the atmosphere. Get it? We can either change what we're doing in order to combat global warming, or we can make the SAME CHANGES to combat acid rain, landslides, soil erosion, river/lake pollution, toxins in the air, et cetera. Please tell me you understand.
[And there are far more appropriate comparisons to make if you're just trying to get across that someone is making assumptions, comparisons that don't involve genocide.
Godwin's Corollary is when the Nazi comparison is made the discussion is over, and whoever made the comparison has automatically lost.]
I can agree with that. I guess what I'm saying is that it's okay not to subscribe to this idea of 'global warming' yet still be an environmentalist. The tone of Steve's post -- "What exactly are you people who are so against the "global warming facists" or "ignorant masses" as you like to call them, afraid of. What is it? You don't want to lose your SUV? You're afraid of some curly light bulbs? What?" -- suggested that not subscribing to this theory means you're against the environment and was accusatory and defensive.