 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
David Suzuki said it, it must be true. He knows everything about economics. |
If you had bothered to glance at the article before you criticized it, you would have seen that it was produced by the World Wildlife Fund and the David Suzuki Foundation, not David Suzuki. The two organizations hired the US-based Tellus Institute to conduct the study.
Among the study's conclusions are:
- A cumulative net economic savings of $4 billion across the economy reaching
- $1.6 billion per year, or $47 per capita, in 2012.
- The net addition of 52,000 jobs in the economy generally, due to the redirection of consumer spending away from fuel and electricity and toward other goods,
services, activities and investments.
- A $135 average annual gain in household wages and salaries; and a $2 billion increase in the national GDP beyond that projected in the business as usual
scenario.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
Their conclusions are what they want to conclude. Perhaps I should start linking to the Canadian Petroleum Association's studies. But no, you'd dismiss that outright, but here you are arguing about the David Suzuki Foundation's report on it.
|
Wrong. I never claimed that these estimates are correct. I merely provided the info.
You're the one saying that a study by environmentalists is biased, while you trumpet the stuff from business organizations.
And again, you missed the point which is you condemned a study without even reading it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
Tingkai, look at the title of the article. The article is about what the Alberta government's position on the issue is, and what they're going to do about it, and suddenly you think it's a big comparitive piece?
You either don't know how to read, or you're just digging for excuses to exclude any articles that disagree with you. |
Here's a news flash: newspapers are not supposed to be PR outlets for governments. The first rule in journalism is to always strive for fairness and balance. There is no such thing as a good article that only presents one side of the story. It is simple. Really.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
Newspapers report the news. That was the news for this article. We've also had articles on the Suzuki Foundation's reports, we've also had articles on Chretien's rationale behind it.
You're acting like this is all the paper prints, when it's certainly not.
It's an article about Klein's reaction. That's what the news was for the day, deal with it.
This is getting pathetic, Tingkai. |
You're right. You are pathetic.
I understand now why you have your opinions. You're only getting one side of the story.
Try to understand this, and trust me, this is my area of expertise: It is a journalist's job to ensure that every news story is balanced. You can't go around saying, "Oh, today we are only printing one side of the story."
This story was propaganda for the Alberta government. It fits in perfectly with the mentality of the Calgary Herald management.
The fact that you can't admit that is a sad indication of your ability to think critically.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
I don't need to share an opinion on it, Tingkai.
|
But you will anyways. 
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
You were making lots of assumptions and you got busted. Face it.
|
Only in your dreams, boy, only in your dreams. 
Come on, if you are going to say that you should at least make an argument against my comments. Simply saying "you're wrong, you're wrong" doesn't make you right.
Fact: you posted an article that presents one side of the story. There were no comments from the federal government. There were no comments from provincial governments supporting Kyoto. There were no comments from neutral observers. The article was one-sided.
So give it up Asher. You're defending the undefensible.
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
Each article tells a specific part of the story, and to get the whole story you read the whole page.
|
You're grasping for straws. The article you cited was a main story on the Herald website, and five will get you 10 that it was on the front page, probably above the fold. There is no corresponding counter-viewpoint so your theory falls to peices.
What you fail to understand is that every article is expected to achieve some form of balance and fairness.
What you're putting forth is a lame excuse for a substandard newspaper.
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
You have no idea what you're talking about, you made some major assumptions that turned out to be false, and you're still going with it. |
Ya, what do I know about journalism, other than having a Master of journalism and more than 10 years of newspaper experience. I bow to the great wisdom of an 18-year-old computer geek.
Admit it Asher. You're wrong. I have made no assumptions. Nothing I have said has been shown to be false.
Throughout this thread you have repeated made statements that have been proven wrong. you have posted propaganda and then tried to claim that it was balanced.
The only thing good that have done is give us all a good laugh.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tingkai
Come on, if you are going to say that you should at least make an argument against my comments. Simply saying "you're wrong, you're wrong" doesn't make you right.
Fact: you posted an article that presents one side of the story. There were no comments from the federal government. There were no comments from provincial governments supporting Kyoto. There were no comments from neutral observers. The article was one-sided.
So give it up Asher. You're defending the undefensible.
You're grasping for straws. The article you cited was a main story on the Herald website, and five will get you 10 that it was on the front page, probably above the fold. There is no corresponding counter-viewpoint so your theory falls to peices. |
Do you understand how Canada.com works? Canada.com is not the Calgary Herald website, the Canada.com staff seemingly randomly selects articles from various publications and puts them on the site. 
quote:
What you fail to understand is that every article is expected to achieve some form of balance and fairness.
What you're putting forth is a lame excuse for a substandard newspaper. |
Tingkai, do you know how pathethic this makes you look?
Not all newspapers are structured the same way, and I quite like the way they structure theirs.
quote:
Admit it Asher. You're wrong. I have made no assumptions. Nothing I have said has been shown to be false. |
Oh my God, Tingkai...
That article was one of 3 for that one day, for the Kyoto issue.
Gagh, you know what? Nevermind. This is lost on you.
You are so convinced you're right that you fail to understand much of anything, and the sad thing is you're probably sitting there thinking I'm the one not getting it.
You just don't know what the Calgary Herald was that day, you saw ONE article that Canada.com selected from it, and you're off in a big huff about how it's a substandard paper. You ASSUME many things, mainly about how we only hear that one side of the story, then when I tell you it's actually not the case, you plug your ears and keep going on and on about how all articles should be "balanced".
Why don't you just drop it and get over it? You don't know what the paper looked like, everything you're basing this off is assumptions, and you don't even have the balls to admit it.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
blackice
|
 |
Canada where else...
Sep 2000
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Smog draining the health care system and economy of more than $1-billion says the Ontario Medical Association. That yellow halo surrounding large cities such as Toronto - commonly known as smog - contains harmful sulphur and nitrogen oxide, according to York University Environmental Studies Professor Grant Sheng. He says increased vehicle use and coal-fired electric generation plants are among the root causes of our air pollution problems. "If this chemical soup can peel paint and erode concrete, think of what it is doing to our lungs," he says. |
quote:
Canada is well positioned as a world-leader in environmental technologies. As a country, we have the right economic conditions, world-class skill sets, technology and increasing numbers of leading-edge companies poised to take advantage of expanding world markets. The government is committed to working in partnership with all stakeholders to enable the Canadian environmental technology sector to be one of the leading pathways to economic growth and social well-being in the knowledge-based economy.
International trade and capital flows have significant potential to influence growth and development in more sustainable directions worldwide. Government has a role to play by ensuring that these flows are reconciled with important environmental and social policy objectives. Such reconciliation could also increase support for international efforts to liberalise trade and investment.
On November 14, 2001, Canada and the 143 other members of the World Trade Organization agreed to launch a new round of global trade negotiations. All countries have agreed to negotiate the reduction or elimination of tariffs and other barriers to trade in environmental goods and services. Canada has strong export strengths and world-class environmental technologies, so both the global environment and our businesses stand to gain.
Environmental technologies, if properly deployed, represents a win-win proposition and can make a significant contribution to improving our environment, while improving our collective standard of living. By acting in partnership with all stakeholders, the government can support the development of this critical sector of our economy while enhancing the well-being of all Canadians.
|
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/pg00019e.html
Strategy man with combine this with carbon sinks etc. Canada will only have to reduce GHG's by one third. At the same time invest heavly into Environmental technologies and corporations that impliment these plans.
You do have a win win situation and very little impact on the economy, in fact my guess is our economy will get better because of it.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-09-2002 07:40
has just become boring. Same old tripe same old non sense.
|
|