PDA

View Full Version : Ward 5 Councillor blows $3181 on trip to Bali



McCauley resident
22-01-2008, 11:30 PM
From: http://www.taxpayerblog.com/2008/01/hypocrisy-run-amok.html

THE CITY OF EDMONTON FLEW A NEW CITY COUNCILLOR TO BALI FOR AN INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE!!!

What on earth is the City of Edmonton doing spending over $3,000 to fly a brand new city councillor half-way around the world to attend a international climate change conference?

For starters, the City of Edmonton is not responsible for the environment in Canada or Alberta. Environmental regulations, carbon taxes, carbon trading schemes, etc. are determined by the federal government or the provincial government. Whether or not Canada signs onto a climate change treaty is not going to be decided or influenced by a civic politician from Edmonton.

Further, isn't it just a tad hypocritical that the City of Edmonton is so concerned about climate change that they would fly someone half-way around the world to talk about it? Most man-made climate change advocates believe CO2 is contributing to the change of the climate. By their argument, isn't putting someone on a plane to fly to Bali creating CO2 and thereby causing more climate change?

moahunter
22-01-2008, 11:47 PM
True or not, good or bad, climate change is a topical issue right now. Maybe he will learn what other cities are doing? One good idea will pay for this in spades. I don't see 3k as a huge scandal, sorry, but it's not IMO. Many employers send employees to conferences, and pay a lot more than this.

GizmoForMayor
23-01-2008, 12:12 AM
The problem being...?

Sending an elected representative to a conference on one of the most pressing issue facing everyone (including Edmontonians) for a tiny sum... tell me again, where is the problem?

MylesC
23-01-2008, 12:50 AM
I find it a little strange. Perhaps the reasoning behind attending this conference and why a councilor went would be a good thing.

Maybe it's in regards to Edmonton's work in garbage and water treatment?

As moa pointed out, there's a lot of expenses blown on conferences by employees. If you dug into the City of Edmonton I'm sure you'd find managers going far beyond the expenses Ivenson tallied up.

grish
23-01-2008, 01:02 AM
don't see a problem. the cost isn't that much. at conferences such as this one ideas are exchanged, technology is presented, and connections are made. edmonton can profit (financially or environmentally--read quality of life) from events such as that one.

good on edmonton for sending a rep. I would move this into a rave section if I had the power...

noodle
23-01-2008, 08:04 AM
Don went to Bali on $3200? Can he plan my summer vacation?

Blueline
23-01-2008, 08:32 AM
Edmonton has an International reputation for the citizen's huge participation in voluntary recycling as well as one of the best methane recovery and composting facilities anywhere.
$3200 seems to me to be a very inexpensive way to assist in sharing this information with others

raz0469
23-01-2008, 10:58 AM
$3200? He obviously flew coach. Contrast that to Provincial government bureaucrats that regularly fly first class to conferences around the world. I'm sure there's plenty of waste in all levels of government, but this to me is not a good example.

Bureaucrats flying first class to Hong Kong? Excellent example.

glasshead
23-01-2008, 11:48 AM
*Yawn*...next

Medwards
23-01-2008, 01:03 PM
*Yawn*...next

I totally agree! 3200 bucks for a conference including air fare? Big whoop!

Let me guess what we find next! A councillor took a $0.40 cent pen home, and didn't return it!

Criminal charges! those are tax payer dollars.

Good Grief.

edit: I went further to the "blog" linked in the first post.... what is so wrong with this:

Return Airfare to Bali - $2,044.94
Hotels - $585.38
Per diem - $450.00
Taxis - $61.00
Exchange of foreign money - $29.28
Wi-fi access at hotel - $10.60

FULL ARTICLE QUOTED... McCauley tends to only post things that support what ever agenda/city money wasting consipricacy of the day:


Newly elected Edmonton City Councillor, Don Iveson (left), recently returned from Bali, Indonesia where he attended the UN Climate Change Conference.

As we like to do here at the CTF, we plunked down our $25 and FOIP'd Councillor Iveson's travel expenses.

What we received can be found HERE.

The total cost of the trip to Edmonton taxpayers was $3,181.20.

The breakdown is as follows:

Return Airfare to Bali - $2,044.94
Hotels - $585.38
Per diem - $450.00
Taxis - $61.00
Exchange of foreign money - $29.28
Wi-fi access at hotel - $10.60

First the good news: Councillor Iveson flew economy class! Generally speaking most politicians refuse to fly at anything less than business class, especially if they are traveling internationally. Iveson should be commended for looking out for the taxpayers by flying economy. A quick check on expedia.ca suggests Iveson probably saved taxpayers $2,200 by not flying Business class. Kudos to him.

Second, the confusing part: It's unclear how the hotel situation worked, as page 2 shows Mr. Iveson booked into a $405 USD per night villa for the entire trip (including December 7th - the night he was flying), page 4 shows him booked into a $259 USD "deluxe suite" for the whole time, page 7 shows a night at the Grand Hyatt for approx $213 CDN, page 9 shows a $100 USD charge from the Oasis Resort & Spa marked as "Hotel #2," and page 10 shows a one night stay at the booking from page 4.

Regardless, taxpayers paid out $585.38 in the end for 3 or 4 nights in Bali (his flight home was at 11:55PM on December 11th, so not sure whether he kept the hotel room that evening). For 3 nights that's $195/night, for 4 nights that's $146. Either way, it's not outrageous.

Now the bad news: THE CITY OF EDMONTON FLEW A NEW CITY COUNCILLOR TO BALI FOR AN INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE!!!

What on earth is the City of Edmonton doing spending over $3,000 to fly a brand new city councillor half-way around the world to attend a international climate change conference?

For starters, the City of Edmonton is not responsible for the environment in Canada or Alberta. Environmental regulations, carbon taxes, carbon trading schemes, etc. are determined by the federal government or the provincial government. Whether or not Canada signs onto a climate change treaty is not going to be decided or influenced by a civic politician from Edmonton.

Further, isn't it just a tad hypocritical that the City of Edmonton is so concerned about climate change that they would fly someone half-way around the world to talk about it? Most man-made climate change advocates believe CO2 is contributing to the change of the climate. By their argument, isn't putting someone on a plane to fly to Bali creating CO2 and thereby causing more climate change?

According to the UN's own estimates, 42,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide and other pollutants were pumped into the atmosphere during the 12-day conference in Bali. According to environmental author Chris Goodall: "their emissions are probably going to be greater than a small African country."

In fact, according to carbonfootprint.com Don Iveson's flight alone to Bali sent 3.308 tonnes of CO2 into our atmosphere. Could Mr. Iveson not have stayed in Edmonton and watched the proceedings via a web-conference? In fact, could not the entire city council have done the same? It would have not only saved taxpayers money, but not put 3 tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Moreover, isn't it completely hypocritical for the City of Edmonton to be spending $140,000 on a campaign to tell people who live in the northern-most major city in Canada not to let their cars warm up in the winter, while agreeing to send one of their own on a CO2 spewing plane around the world?

Iveson's trip put as much CO2 into the air as 30 compact cars idling 5 minutes a day for year!

And, isn't it hypocritical of Councillor Iveson to even agree to go on this trip?

He's so concerned about the environment that he wants to make it illegal for Edmontonians to let their frozen cars warm up in -30C weather.

From his website (SEE Magazine - September 6, 2007):

SEE: You'd support a ban on pesticides. Would you also support a ban on idling?

Don Iveson: Yes. I think it was silly that we had to pay for the idling campaign because it would have been a lot cheaper to simply pass the law.... Enough other cities have done it and the sky hasn't fallen.


To his credit he agrees the $140k is a complete waste of money, but when it comes to spewing CO2 his stance is completely hypocritical.

It's not ok to let Edmontonians warm up their cars in the winter because it's harmful to the environment, but it's ok to fly to Bali to attend a conference where the City of Edmonton has no legitimate function?

It seems once again, there's one set of rules for the taxpayers and another for the politicians.

Posted by Scott Hennig at 10:49 AM

Notice - these aren't McCauley words, just something he quote in part...

Medwards
23-01-2008, 01:10 PM
And to further end this silly thread - Should the City of Edmonton not be concerned about climate change? Maybe we should have sent 2 councilors.

RichardS
23-01-2008, 01:37 PM
Wow, my last TO trip, all in, was 2K. He went to Bali for 3K.

Good travel planning IMO.

...or proof we need more competition on the TO Air Canada routes....

240GLT
23-01-2008, 01:40 PM
If Scott Hennig had his way we'd all pay no taxes at all but pay service charges and user fees for just about everything you can imagine.

$3,200 ? Cheap

bornandraised
23-01-2008, 01:59 PM
Personally, I'm less concerned with the cost than with the facts that:

1) he had been on the job less than 60 days at that point -- I really don't think he had a lot of knowledge at that point about what the City of Edmonton has been doing. Perhaps there was someone in the administration who would have more knowledge, experience, and insight into what we're doing that's truly innovative?

2) he was away for 6 days (maybe 7 if he spent some time after his return getting over jet lag) in the middle of BUDGET DELIBERATIONS -- in his first year on council. And because of the travel time and time changes, he was only actually in Bali for three days.

Just seems like a long way to send a rookie councillor for very little return during a key time in the city's budget process. Nice reward for beating Mike Nickel, though, and for getting that thorn out of Mandel's and the rest of Council's side ...

peeved
23-01-2008, 02:02 PM
If Scott Hennig had his way we'd all pay no taxes at all but pay service charges and user fees for just about everything you can imagine.

$3,200 ? Cheap

The city makes sure we pay these service charges and user fees as well as our taxes; may be since he doesn't have a car he should have used his vechile allowance.

RichardS
23-01-2008, 02:28 PM
Just seems like a long way to send a rookie councillor for very little return during a key time in the city's budget process. Nice reward for beating Mike Nickel, though, and for getting that thorn out of Mandel's and the rest of Council's side ...

OK, now we're looking for conspiracy theories where none exist. That has to be the biggest logical leap I've heard since the argument of "opening up YXD will lead to less deaths on the QEII".

My goodness, it COULDN'T be that sending a member of the younger generation who is more in tune with the new thinking and approaches and does not come jaded with 1970's thinking could actually go to Bali with an OPEN MIND. Nah. There could not be anything to that at all.

And, of course, the planning of the Bali conference was timed to co-incide with the City of Edmonton's budget timelines. With out 2 councilors per ward, and more than likely all issues on the table prior to departure, as well as the odd call back home to discuss specific issues whth line items pertaining to his ward, I'm sure Iverson was not out of the loop. They did invent the telephone you know.

And this bunk about his CO2 emissions on this trip....on a plane...that was going there anyway....barf up a lung already on this ridiculous correlation attempt. Until planes use some other fuel...

Edmonton has examples of environmental stewardship. The trip was well within budgets I provide - in fact even on the uber cheap side for this trip. 3,200 for recognition and networking, not freaking bad at all. SAPPHIRE costs twice that alone.

Wow, talk about ringing alarm bells for nothing. Nah, it is all about "revenge" and "appreciation" for beating Milke. :roll:

No wonder no qualified candidate ever runs. You get the ever loving crap beaten out of you no matter what you do. 70K a year? No thanks. I'll stay in the private sector thank you very much. At least I can have a life without some Federation akin to 2 guys and a coffee pot telling me how stupid each and every decision is, and not offering other solutions.

ridgeman
23-01-2008, 02:56 PM
Based on the responses thus far on this ridiculous thread, I would have say "Another swing and a miss for McCauley guy"

Medwards
23-01-2008, 03:33 PM
Based on the responses thus far on this ridiculous thread, I would have say "Another swing and a miss for McCauley guy"

and... Hennig

...I wonder...

nah...

snakes on a blog
23-01-2008, 03:38 PM
would this be an issue if it were an MLA that went on this trip?

...likely not, and it would have been MUCH more expensive. btw, did anyone from the stelmach gov't attend? I'm sure Scott Henning wouldn't have a problem with a conservative politician attending this conference, but a lefty on the city council is open to a full blown attack!

The fact that council sent someone shows that there is interest in cutting back our emissions, which will reap benefits in the future.

raz0469
23-01-2008, 03:47 PM
Generally speaking most politicians refuse to fly at anything less than business class, especially if they are traveling internationally

See, this is what I have a problem with. If these politicians were taking their family on vacation, I can guarantee they'd be flying coach/economy. Why if you're a politician or bureaucrat doing government business is it suddenly okay to pay 3-4 times the cost of an economy ticket? Oh right, because it's not their money.

Were I elected Dictator For Life, my first decree would be that taxpayers should only be expected to foot the bill for economy flights. Should politicians and bureaucrats want to fly business class, they can damn well pay for the difference.

glasshead
23-01-2008, 04:14 PM
Just seems like a long way to send a rookie councillor for very little return during a key time in the city's budget process. Nice reward for beating Mike Nickel, though, and for getting that thorn out of Mandel's and the rest of Council's side ...

OK, now we're looking for conspiracy theories where none exist. That has to be the biggest logical leap I've heard since the argument of "opening up YXD will lead to less deaths on the QEII".

My goodness, it COULDN'T be that sending a member of the younger generation who is more in tune with the new thinking and approaches and does not come jaded with 1970's thinking could actually go to Bali with an OPEN MIND. Nah. There could not be anything to that at all.

And, of course, the planning of the Bali conference was timed to co-incide with the City of Edmonton's budget timelines. With out 2 councilors per ward, and more than likely all issues on the table prior to departure, as well as the odd call back home to discuss specific issues whth line items pertaining to his ward, I'm sure Iverson was not out of the loop. They did invent the telephone you know.

And this bunk about his CO2 emissions on this trip....on a plane...that was going there anyway....barf up a lung already on this ridiculous correlation attempt. Until planes use some other fuel...

Edmonton has examples of environmental stewardship. The trip was well within budgets I provide - in fact even on the uber cheap side for this trip. 3,200 for recognition and networking, not freaking bad at all. SAPPHIRE costs twice that alone.

Wow, talk about ringing alarm bells for nothing. Nah, it is all about "revenge" and "appreciation" for beating Milke. :roll:

No wonder no qualified candidate ever runs. You get the ever loving crap beaten out of you no matter what you do. 70K a year? No thanks. I'll stay in the private sector thank you very much. At least I can have a life without some Federation akin to 2 guys and a coffee pot telling me how stupid each and every decision is, and not offering other solutions.

..and is the Environment not his portfolio within his civic duties? Looks like a tremendous training opportunity and a great forum for idea exchanging. I repeat *yawn*

LindseyT
23-01-2008, 05:44 PM
Generally speaking most politicians refuse to fly at anything less than business class, especially if they are traveling internationally

See, this is what I have a problem with. If these politicians were taking their family on vacation, I can guarantee they'd be flying coach/economy. Why if you're a politician or bureaucrat doing government business is it suddenly okay to pay 3-4 times the cost of an economy ticket? Oh right, because it's not their money.

Were I elected Dictator For Life, my first decree would be that taxpayers should only be expected to foot the bill for economy flights. Should politicians and bureaucrats want to fly business class, they can damn well pay for the difference.

But these guys essentially are running a billion dollar enterprise. What would a senior exec of a private company be flying in?

seriously $3000. Everyone responding with valid arguements and logic are wasting their time. People who are complaining about this don't care about about logic and facts as they are unable to comprehend good arguements. They only thing they see is this could fill two potholes or buy 2000 crappy coffees at TH's.

peeved
23-01-2008, 06:47 PM
These guys get 600.00 a month for a vechile allowance (times 12 months that's 7200) he only spent 3200 hundred so he has enough left for another trip; bet they'll send him to Cancun for the annual pot hole convention in March.

raz0469
23-01-2008, 06:52 PM
But these guys essentially are running a billion dollar enterprise. What would a senior exec of a private company be flying in?

The Premier, ministers, hell perhaps even MLA's I can see this analogy being valid. But I'm talking mid to low level bureaucrats happily booking first class tickets to attend conferences, sometimes with wife in tow. That kind of thing is rampant, and it's unacceptable.

Medwards
23-01-2008, 06:55 PM
These guys get 600.00 a month for a vechile allowance (times 12 months that's 7200) he only spent 3200 hundred so he has enough left for another trip; bet they'll send him to Cancun for the annual pot hole convention in March.

:lol: :smt021

ralph60
23-01-2008, 09:04 PM
I spend $10,000 a month travelling Alberta and Northern B.C..
Whether the conference is in Bali or Cowgary doesn't matter. The guy is still travelling on business. He is away from home and his family. There is very little time wasted at a three day conference for anything regardless of location.
To criticize a counsellor for taking a trip like this is ridiculous. I can guarantee that he will be spending virtually all of his free time on city business for the rest of his term. People should save their critcism for worthwhile issues, to spout off on this is petty in the extreme.

The_Cat
23-01-2008, 11:29 PM
I've travelled on business to other areas of Canada, and spending $3000 for a professional development conference is not that uncommon. I think that Don Iveson was within his right to attend. I'm sure he has made some great international contacts, as well as learning about potential future energy policy. This will have a great effect on our city, and we have to plan for the changes ahead.

I am tired of the ongoing petty criticism of every nickel and dime that is perceived to be misspent. These are nothing more than generalizations, and those who can't make a stronger argument than that ultimately ruin their credibility.

To these critics: Show some true leadership and take a stand on the tougher issues.

McCauley resident
25-01-2008, 01:22 AM
Coun. Iveson labelled a hypocrite
By Kerry Diotte

What could you do with $3,181.20?

Pay off a few past-due bills?

Use some of it to replace a couple of drafty windows in your home?

Pay your kids' hockey fees?

Rookie Ward 5 Coun. Don Iveson used exactly that amount of taxpayer cash to take a trip half way around the world just before Christmas during a time when council typically debates the civic budget.

He went to Bali, Indonesia, to attend an environmental event that was essentially part of the UN climate change conference.

Edmonton's a member of the organization of local governments that put on some save-the-planet sessions in Bali, under the auspices of something called the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) - Local Governments for Sustainability.

He was there representing Mayor Stephen Mandel, because this city next year hosts the World Congress of the ICLEI for 500 expected delegates. Iveson says someone from here had to be in Bali.

But the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) calls B.S. on that.

The CTF dug up trip details and posted them at www.taxpayerblog.com headlined, "Hypocrisy run amok."

They question the value of Iveson spending more than $3,000 in tax money - mainly for airfares and hotels - and wonder how much the trip itself damaged the environment.

According to carbonfootprint.com, Iveson's Bali flight itself sent 3.308 tonnes of planet-ravaging CO2 into our atmosphere.

Want more hypocrisy? Iveson, a former employee of the U of A's student union, is the same guy who wanted a bylaw to ban people from idling their vehicles too long and fine them if they did. That'd go down well when it's -30C in Edmonton. Instead of passing a law, council authorized spending $140,000 this year on an anti-idling information campaign.

There's a palpable stench of hypocrisy from this politician who was 28 years old when he knocked off fiscal conservative incumbent Mike Nickel Oct. 15.

The city should gas such junkets. Use teleconferences or Internet linkups instead. That would truly help save the planet, curb the waste of tax money - and maybe, stamp out some hypocrisy too.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/Commentary/2008/01/24/4790768.html

McCauley resident
25-01-2008, 01:32 AM
As moa pointed out, there's a lot of expenses blown on conferences by employees. If you dug into the City of Edmonton I'm sure you'd find managers going far beyond the expenses Ivenson tallied up.
I love the fact that most posters here believe blowing taxpayers money on junkets is a good thing.......... :roll:

I love the fact that the City administration will throw this junket in Iveson's face then call him a complete hypocrite if he attempts to cut their travel & conference expenses.

Less than two months in office - Iveson has been exposed as someone who believes taxpayers are stupid and that their money is his............ :?

McCauley resident
25-01-2008, 01:39 AM
I can guarantee that he will be spending virtually all of his free time on city business for the rest of his term.
You can guarantee that................. :shock:



..and is the Environment not his portfolio within his civic duties? Looks like a tremendous training opportunity and a great forum for idea exchanging.
If we shut down all furnaces in the city & then used nothing but dog sleds, there would be no Kyoto effect........

I eagerly wait his report on what Edmonton will do to save the planet from greenhouse gases..... :-D

McCauley resident
25-01-2008, 03:13 AM
McCauley tends to only post things that support what ever agenda/city money wasting consipricacy of the day
Stupid me - believing that the government has no money - that all the money they spend is taxpayers money......

And that when money is spent on junkets, it is not spent on services "that level of government" is mandated to provide.....

If you are so much in favor of Iveson flying to a vacation hotspot where they did not discuss recycling, why did you not pay for his trip........... :roll:

GizmoForMayor
25-01-2008, 03:43 AM
Now the bad news: THE CITY OF EDMONTON FLEW A NEW CITY COUNCILLOR TO BALI FOR AN INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE!!!

What is it with conservatives and the the CAPS LOCK! button anyways...?

I think the problem for people like McCauley resident and others like him is not just about what they see as government waste, but also about what they perceive to be 'the great enviornmental conspiracy.' In other words, they don't believe in Climate Change and therefore see these $3,000 as having gone towards supporting this conspiracy... outrageous enough to warrant use of the caps lock button (although it doesn't take much). Trying to convince them it is not a conspiracy with things as such as "facts" and "figures" will prove fruitless, so I recommend we just roll our collective eyes and move on...

McCauley resident
25-01-2008, 03:58 AM
What is it with conservatives and the the CAPS LOCK! button anyways...?

<clip>

I recommend we just roll our collective eyes and move on...
What your post is actually saying is that when you can not oppose my points with facts - change the discussion with personal smears...

Please link to one of my posts where I have used the "CAPS LOCK!" button to prove a point.........

I do however use the emoticon option to those who deserve it................. :roll:

Bryguy
25-01-2008, 06:21 AM
Does anyone know why the trip was made?
Perhaps it was 'a reward' for ousting Nickel, as suggested?
Perhaps it was mainly for the councilor to gain some contacts in the field?
Perhaps it was to see what a somewhat similar event would be like - for that World Congress of the ICLEI next year?
Or maybe it was a fiendish plot to poison the earth with a trans-pacific flight? We're doomed now, shame.

The point I'm trying to make is that if you are concerned about this trip then perhaps it would be better to ask the reason why instead of tossing about a few theories. Has any of those concerned contacted the councilor directly? If so, what did he say?

As far as I'm concerned one very inexpensive trip, that may or may not have had legitimate reasons behind it, is not that big a deal. Now if this becomes a reoccurring theme it is something to watch for. The point has been made, the public is aware - let's move on.

Something the government paid for that was inexpensive and didn't cut corners - please Sir I'd like some more.

lux
25-01-2008, 07:44 AM
Why is it that if a government leader does this it is a "wasteful junket" but if a VP from a Calgary-based oil company goes to this thing it is a "business trip."

And with the potential impact on my business model, if I were running an oilsands company for instance, I would definitely be either sending someone to this conference or I'd be sending them somewhere that week to figure out what the impact would be and how to handle it.

Why do I think that Iveson would be getting praise from the exact same people if he had spent that same amount of money on a trip to attend a seminar from the Fraser Institute called "City Taxes: How to Lower them Lower than the Taxes Even in Places Like Angola."

glasshead
25-01-2008, 10:00 AM
..and is the Environment not his portfolio within his civic duties? Looks like a tremendous training opportunity and a great forum for idea exchanging.
If we shut down all furnaces in the city & then used nothing but dog sleds, there would be no Kyoto effect........

I eagerly wait his report on what Edmonton will do to save the planet from greenhouse gases..... :-D

Like I said in my post, this conference was not only to learn of other ideas for climate change, but to share knowledge to the world what Edmonton is doing to curb greenhouse gases. Whether you believe the climate change science or not, conservation and energy efficiency makes economic sense as well. It's close minded, blinder binded people that automatically cry economic disaster when climate change is brought up.

read up on one initiative Edmonton has already been pursuing to save your planet:

http://www.co2re.ca/

kcantor
25-01-2008, 10:56 AM
...What is it with conservatives and the the CAPS LOCK! button anyways...?
here we go with the stereotyping again...

for what it's worth, some of us "conservatives" almost never capitalize anything (at least on line)... :)

tkoe
25-01-2008, 04:54 PM
Man is this stupid! Councillor Iveson takes a trip for $3000, the information is made public and faster than you can say Indonesia the conservaties -- still sore about losing Mike Nickel -- start to beat the war drums.

What about the whole 'Air Alberta' debacle with Ralphie & Co. flying empty planes around the whole province for convenience sake? Slap a privacy ban on the information and like Tory-blue sheep no one says a thing. That is the kind of ridiculousness that is truly a waste of taxpayers’ money -- I guess righteous indignation only goes one way in this province, though....

lux
25-01-2008, 05:06 PM
here we go with the stereotyping again...

for what it's worth, some of us "conservatives" almost never capitalize anything (at least on line)... :)


....typical...accuse the liberals of stereotyping again...

grin.

LindseyT
25-01-2008, 06:12 PM
Coun. Iveson labelled a hypocrite
By Kerry Diotte

What could you do with $3,181.20?

Pay off a few past-due bills?

Use some of it to replace a couple of drafty windows in your home?

Pay your kids' hockey fees?





How about donate it to the "help poor excuses for journalist's put food on the table after our poor excuse of a media company goes under next month" foundation?

ED1
25-01-2008, 07:29 PM
Graham Hicks challenging his Sun colleague about this issue...

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Columnists/Hicks_Graham/2008/01/25/4793019.html

McCauley resident
25-01-2008, 07:53 PM
this conference was not only to learn of other ideas for climate change, but to share knowledge to the world what Edmonton is doing to curb greenhouse gases. Whether you believe the climate change science or not, conservation and energy efficiency makes economic sense as well. It's close minded, blinder binded people that automatically cry economic disaster when climate change is brought up.

read up on one initiative Edmonton has already been pursuing to save your planet:

http://www.co2re.ca/

First of all, that link you provided is not an Edmonton initiative - it is a federal program paid out of federal taxes I pay... The City however has created a bureaucracy to allocate these federal grants...

Second, if you would like to discuss greenhouse gases as a topic, start a new thread after you read this ( http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ ).......

If you would like to discuss global warming - just watch the sun rise & the temperature along with it...

If you want to discuss climate change, just watch the snow melt in the spring - I guarantee the climate will change as the days get longer...


Man is this stupid! Councillor Iveson takes a trip for $3000, the information is made public
Not true - the only way the details became public is because the Canadian Taxpayers Federation paid through FOIP to access them. Iveson's intent was that the details remain buried...... :?

McCauley resident
25-01-2008, 08:03 PM
Graham Hicks challenging his Sun colleague about this issue...

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Columnists/Hicks_Graham/2008/01/25/4793019.html

I will be educating Graham Hicks on the facts of his challenge....


A challenge to my colleague Kerry Diotte's editorial yesterday, criticizing councillor Don Iveson for attending the Indonesian climate change conference on city coin.

It wasn't about a councillor using public money to hop on his own hobby horse.

Iveson went as an official Edmonton representative.

Edmonton will be hosting a 500-delegate conference of a group attending the Indonesian gathering, the "International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives."

That conference will bring millions of dollars into Edmonton, and has a municipal government component.

As the next host city, we HAD to be represented in Bali.

The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives is funded through our taxes http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=780

Once again out tax money is being spent creating an issue that only more taxes will solve....... :?

We would get greater economic benefit (and cleaner roads) if we just spent that money on snow removal...

And this whole organization does nothing but hold junkets in different locations - they hold meetings & talk... ( http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=global-programs ). They use our taxes to tell us how to spend more taxes.

Now that I think about it - it makes perfect sense why Iveson was chosen to attend the Bali junket........ :-D

kcantor
25-01-2008, 11:45 PM
...Not true - the only way the details became public is because the Canadian Taxpayers Federation paid through FOIP to access them. Iveson's intent was that the details remain buried...... :?
McCauley resident, i think you may be making the same mistake that can be seen a number of other recent/active threads - mixing apples and oranges. regardless of your opinons on climate change, global warming and greenhouse gases (some of which i probably share), impuning iveson's intent to try and make points or further your opinions is both misguided and wrong.

there were two canadian cities attending the conference in an "official" capacity that were listed in the events program - the city of edmonton and the city of vancouver- and the city of edmonton formally hosted a reception during one evening of the conference. these types of events are not arranged or staged to "bury the details". by their very nature, they are staged to further their agendas in as public a fashion as possible.

you may have issues with some of those agendas but you surely can't really believe that it was iveson's intent to participate and somehow hide that participation. "environmental responsiblity" - however that is defined and implemented :) - was a keystone in his election platform, he has taken on council's "environmental sustainability initiative" (with councillor sloan), and neither his nor the city's involvement in the bali conference or the iclei conference was particularly hard to discern regardless of how some now choose to treat it after the fact.

your personal comments seem to reflect an agenda of your own completely independent of any of iveson's actual actions in regard to this issue and are probably a good example of why it is so hard to get good, qualified people to run for office.

McCauley resident
26-01-2008, 12:39 AM
there were two canadian cities attending the conference in an "official" capacity that were listed in the events program - the city of edmonton and the city of vancouver- and the city of edmonton formally hosted a reception during one evening of the conference. these types of events are not arranged or staged to "bury the details". by their very nature, they are staged to further their agendas in as public a fashion as possible.

you may have issues with some of those agendas but you surely can't really believe that it was iveson's intent to participate and somehow hide that participation. "environmental responsiblity" - however that is defined and implemented :) - was a keystone in his election platform, he has taken on council's "environmental sustainability initiative" (with councillor sloan), and neither his nor the city's involvement in the bali conference or the iclei conference was particularly hard to discern regardless of how some now choose to treat it after the fact.

The City of Edmonton formally hosted a reception? Who went on the city's behalf? What was the cost of the reception? If a reception is the usual definition with "no business done" but "wine & cheese for all", this is something I am going to have to look into further. Thanks for the lead......

Environmental responsibility on the municipal level means cleaning up the North Saskatchewan River so the limit on eating pike is more than one per month as per Alberta Health.

I still remember the stories 20 years ago that the farmland around Edmonton had the richest soil in Canada - I am expecting Iveson to stop all urban sprawl if he is true to the concept of "environmental sustainability".

Otherwise the words are fluff & it is just an excuse to spend taxpayers money on junkets...

lux
26-01-2008, 12:42 AM
Once again out tax money is being spent creating an issue that only more taxes will solve....... :?


I know! It is just like those stupid businesses that spend all the shareholders' capital drawing up plans for new upgraders, and then they just have to go blow more of the shareholders' hard earned money on building the darn things!!!

If Suncor just went and bought us all a few cheap bicycles, or maybe wagons, we could pull them down the newly ploughed roads with donkeys then we wouldn't need the oil, and then the shareholders of the oilsands plants would finally be able to keep all their capital!

Instead these executives go on their junkets up to fort macmurray and then have the nerve to come back and use the shareholders' own money to try to dazzle them at AGMs with all their mumbo jumbo....

WOOOO Shareholder rights, brother!!!


</satire>

peeved
26-01-2008, 10:07 AM
Why is it that if a government leader does this it is a "wasteful junket" but if a VP from a Calgary-based oil company goes to this thing it is a "business trip."

And with the potential impact on my business model, if I were running an oilsands company for instance, I would definitely be either sending someone to this conference or I'd be sending them somewhere that week to figure out what the impact would be and how to handle it.

Why do I think that Iveson would be getting praise from the exact same people if he had spent that same amount of money on a trip to attend a seminar from the Fraser Institute called "City Taxes: How to Lower them Lower than the Taxes Even in Places Like Angola."

A VP from a Calgary based oil company doesn't go on taxes payers money I would suggest that this makes a big difference.

Medwards
26-01-2008, 10:11 AM
Why is it that if a government leader does this it is a "wasteful junket" but if a VP from a Calgary-based oil company goes to this thing it is a "business trip."

And with the potential impact on my business model, if I were running an oilsands company for instance, I would definitely be either sending someone to this conference or I'd be sending them somewhere that week to figure out what the impact would be and how to handle it.

Why do I think that Iveson would be getting praise from the exact same people if he had spent that same amount of money on a trip to attend a seminar from the Fraser Institute called "City Taxes: How to Lower them Lower than the Taxes Even in Places Like Angola."

A VP from a Calgary based oil company doesn't go on taxes payers money I would suggest that this makes a big difference.

I think you missed the point.

In a business, the equivalant of the tax payer, is the shareholder? So the VP is spending their shareholders money...

Dont get it still? I give up.

SOUND THE ALARM BELLS!

lux
26-01-2008, 10:37 AM
Yes, I'm afraid my point is not getting through.

As an oil company shareholder, I would expect my company to be at the table for any environmental discussion involving CO2 targets. I would be very dissatisfied if my company buried its head in the sand.

Even if the company went for the most cynical of reasons (like managing PR and identifying business risks) I'd still expect them to go. As it happens, saving the world is likely to be very profitable, and Alberta is not totally useless when it comes to technologies like CO2 capture and reuse in extraction. So going has a pretty good business case.

Don't you think it would be really smart for civic leaders from the city at the centre of all that economic activity to know what's going on at a conference like that?

I do. For exactly the same reasons, cynical or otherwise, they had better be up to speed. I would like my civic leaders to be informed enough to be able to carry on an intelligent conversation about the events of the conference and how they might impact my business operations.

I also think that just like a shareholder in a company, we as citizens are stakeholders in the city. I expect a payoff from this expenditure; I expect my city leaders to be up to date on global conferences that could come down like a hammer on our economy if they go wrong. Or, the same conference could create incredible economic opportunity for building on our environmental expertise.

In short, I expect them to be engaged and informed, and if someone gets worked up about $3000 then go invest in money market funds and go live in a small town on Prince Edward Island with the economy set on "idle."

peeved
27-01-2008, 02:24 AM
Why is it that if a government leader does this it is a "wasteful junket" but if a VP from a Calgary-based oil company goes to this thing it is a "business trip."

And with the potential impact on my business model, if I were running an oilsands company for instance, I would definitely be either sending someone to this conference or I'd be sending them somewhere that week to figure out what the impact would be and how to handle it.

Why do I think that Iveson would be getting praise from the exact same people if he had spent that same amount of money on a trip to attend a seminar from the Fraser Institute called "City Taxes: How to Lower them Lower than the Taxes Even in Places Like Angola."

A VP from a Calgary based oil company doesn't go on taxes payers money I would suggest that this makes a big difference.

I think you missed the point.

In a business, the equivalant of the tax payer, is the shareholder? So the VP is spending their shareholders money...

Dont get it still? I give up.

SOUND THE ALARM BELLS!

As a tax payer (shareholder) I would be a little concerned if the VP was spending my money to send some one who was very new to the company and inexperienced;I would want him getting the best bang for my buck;that's what I don't understand so don't break your arm trying to sound the alarm bells or trying to pat yourself on the back for the wealth of knowledge you seemed to think you pocess.

glasshead
27-01-2008, 10:04 AM
this conference was not only to learn of other ideas for climate change, but to share knowledge to the world what Edmonton is doing to curb greenhouse gases. Whether you believe the climate change science or not, conservation and energy efficiency makes economic sense as well. It's close minded, blinder binded people that automatically cry economic disaster when climate change is brought up.

read up on one initiative Edmonton has already been pursuing to save your planet:

http://www.co2re.ca/

First of all, that link you provided is not an Edmonton initiative - it is a federal program paid out of federal taxes I pay... The City however has created a bureaucracy to allocate these federal grants...

Second, if you would like to discuss greenhouse gases as a topic, start a new thread after you read this ( http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ ).......

If you would like to discuss global warming - just watch the sun rise & the temperature along with it...

If you want to discuss climate change, just watch the snow melt in the spring - I guarantee the climate will change as the days get longer...


Man is this stupid! Councillor Iveson takes a trip for $3000, the information is made public
Not true - the only way the details became public is because the Canadian Taxpayers Federation paid through FOIP to access them. Iveson's intent was that the details remain buried...... :?

CO2RE (Carbon Dioxide Reduction Edmonton) is a community-wide plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Edmonton. It was created by a coalition of more than 20 local companies, non-profit organizations, institutions and government agencies. While the City of Edmonton played a lead role in bringing these diverse groups together, the plan was developed by the community – for the community.

Yes, there are federal grants and good on Edmonton for using the funds accordingly and for a great initiative.

oh, and the link you provided me...could you actually post a link with an article with proper footnotes and references to defend these claims - not a website run by a Foxnews columnist and who is biased with an ultra right wing, free market agenda (read Cato Institute). It's good to know you appreciate the real science. :roll:

McCauley resident
27-01-2008, 01:04 PM
"environmental responsiblity" - however that is defined and implemented :) - was a keystone in his election platform, he has taken on council's "environmental sustainability initiative" (with councillor sloan)

From: http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Columnists/Waugh_Neil/2008/01/27/4795859.html




If Iveson and whoever his wonkie-doodle Cowtown counterpart turns out to be are serious, why not take it to the max?

Or the core -- as in Calgary's Enmax and Edmonton's EPCOR, the two big power outfits that try to pretend they are honest-to-goodness private-sector corporations.

<clip>

EPCOR announced a year ago last week that the third 450-MW unit at Keephills in the Wabamun coal fields was a go, which will complement the Genesee units across the river.

In November, EPCOR jumped into the Dodds-Round Hill coal gasification project, signing a deal to build the power plant for the controversial project in Stelmach's riding.

And what goes up the smoke stacks of all these plants is the stuff they call greenhouse gases -- which are badder than bad.

So will Enmax and EPCOR be ordered to get out of the greenhouse-gas business?

So is Iveson going to be true to his "environmental responsibility" platform? Or is he going to prove the junket was just to pad his resume......... :wink:

McCauley resident
27-01-2008, 01:10 PM
CO2RE (Carbon Dioxide Reduction Edmonton) is a community-wide plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Edmonton. It was created by a coalition of more than 20 local companies, non-profit organizations, institutions and government agencies. While the City of Edmonton played a lead role in bringing these diverse groups together, the plan was developed by the community – for the community.
It is clear my city taxes were spent "in a lead role" - so why not list the 20 local companies, non-profit organizations, institutions and government agencies so we can figure out what is really going on...... :wink:

grish
27-01-2008, 01:12 PM
long-term, yes Epcor and Enmax should develop or invest in technology to not produce any harmful emissions.

Null Void is really the wrong person to quote. The guy makes less sense then suntanning at night, outside, in -30 weather.

McCauley resident
27-01-2008, 03:24 PM
Null Void is really the wrong person to quote.
Would you please provide the list of "acceptable" journalists....... :wink:

Because what I have seen so for is that Don Iveson is nothing more than the reincarnation of Tooker Gomberg (but better dressed)........ :smt005

glasshead
27-01-2008, 04:04 PM
CO2RE (Carbon Dioxide Reduction Edmonton) is a community-wide plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Edmonton. It was created by a coalition of more than 20 local companies, non-profit organizations, institutions and government agencies. While the City of Edmonton played a lead role in bringing these diverse groups together, the plan was developed by the community – for the community.
It is clear my city taxes were spent "in a lead role" - so why not list the 20 local companies, non-profit organizations, institutions and government agencies so we can figure out what is really going on...... :wink:

You can find out the list of companies and other players, but it involves some research. You know, instead of googling "leftwing conspiracy theory climate change" that took you to your reputable climate change (gloabl warming) denial source, type in "Co2re edmonton partnerships". :P :wink:

grish
27-01-2008, 04:41 PM
Null Void is really the wrong person to quote.
Would you please provide the list of "acceptable" journalists....... :wink:


the guy invents things and writes his opinions, so technically he is not a journalist. he is just a grumpy *****.

so, to answer your request to provide a list of more credible journalists--pretty much everyone else would be more credible.

Medwards
27-01-2008, 04:43 PM
CO2RE (Carbon Dioxide Reduction Edmonton) is a community-wide plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Edmonton. It was created by a coalition of more than 20 local companies, non-profit organizations, institutions and government agencies. While the City of Edmonton played a lead role in bringing these diverse groups together, the plan was developed by the community – for the community.
It is clear my city taxes were spent "in a lead role" - so why not list the 20 local companies, non-profit organizations, institutions and government agencies so we can figure out what is really going on...... :wink:

Did you even look at the website before passing judgement? The answer you seek are right there on the website.

I'll list them for you.


CO2RE Team Members
CO2RE team members include representatives from the following organizations:

* Alberta Environment
* Alberta Environmental Network
* ATCO Gas
* Canadian Forces Base; Edmonton Garrison-Edmonton Namao
* Celanese Canada Inc.
* City of Edmonton:
o Asset Management & Public Works
o Community Services
o Office of the Environment
o Transportation & Planning
* EcoCity
* Environmental Advisory Committee (City of Edmonton)
* Green Communities
* Inland Cement
* Natural Resources Canada
* Sierra Club
* Toxics Watch Society
* University of Alberta
* Facilities Management
* Urban Development Institute
* Worthington Properties


http://www.co2re.ca/about-mem.htm


The Organization
The CO2RE Interim Secretariat was formed in May 2002 and has been operating with support from the City of Edmonton’s Office of the Environment. The plan is to incorporate CO2RE as a stand-alone non-profit organization by January 2006. The City of Edmonton will continue to play a supportive role.

The CO2RE organization, as laid out in the CO2RE business plan (Link to Business Plan PDF) is envisioned as the following:

* A 10 to 12 member “Board of Directors”, made up of prominent Edmonton citizens and stakeholders, responsible for organization direction, funding, development and accountability.
* Development of 3 Advisory Working Tables: Industrial, Institutional/Commercial and Residential with 6 to 10 members each, to promote and facilitate individual sectors’ actions through identifying and developing specific market transformation/intervention initiatives.
* Establishment of an Energy Futures Group working table of 6 to 8 members as special energy advisors for individual sector working tables and the CO2RE organization to provide direction for the long-term transition towards sustainable energy use.
* The provision of two full time employees through the Office of the Environment to work specifically on community-wide programs and in a coordinating and support services role with the new CO2RE organization.



CO2RE Leadership Group
In the fall of 2001 a group of prominent leaders came together to support Edmonton’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction and Energy Strategy. They represent:

* Alberta Environmental Network
* Government of Alberta
* Alberta Research Council
* ATCO Gas
* Alberta Capital Region Alliance
* Alberta Motor Association
* Building Owners and Managers’ Association
* Capital Health
* Celanese Canada – Edmonton
* City of Edmonton
* Climate Change Central
* Economic Development Edmonton
* Edmonton Catholic School Board
* Edmonton Public Schools
* Enbridge Pipelines Inc.
* Environmental Resource Centre
* Environment Canada, Prairie and Northern Region
* EPCOR
* Greater Edmonton Home Builders’ Association
* Toxics Watch Society
* Telus
* Sierra Club
* Urban Development Institute
* University of Alberta
* The Pembina Institute
* The Northern Alberta Institute of Technology
* Inland Cement Edmonton Facility
* Natural Resources Canada


So McCauley, that took all of about 2 minutes to copy and paste. Do you need me to do other research for you as well, next time you post? Cause each time you do, I have no problem. The more you type, the more I realize how inconceivability some of your notions are.

kcantor
27-01-2008, 05:39 PM
CO2RE (Carbon Dioxide Reduction Edmonton) is a community-wide plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Edmonton. It was created by a coalition of more than 20 local companies, non-profit organizations, institutions and government agencies. While the City of Edmonton played a lead role in bringing these diverse groups together, the plan was developed by the community – for the community.
It is clear my city taxes were spent "in a lead role" - so why not list the 20 local companies, non-profit organizations, institutions and government agencies so we can figure out what is really going on...... :wink:
assuming "your" city taxes are typical, they might amount to about 0.0001% of the city's overall budget. this trip amounts to about 0.00015% of that overall budget. on a proportionate basis, we will be approaching the next ice age before "your" taxes would pay for this trip - hardly a lead role.

McCauley resident
27-01-2008, 05:49 PM
So McCauley, that took all of about 2 minutes to copy and paste. Do you need me to do other research for you as well, next time you post? Cause each time you do, I have no problem. The more you type, the more I realize how inconceivability some of your notions are.

When the moderators stoop to name calling, I know I am on the right track.......... :wink:

Now that you verified that the information I found is valid - let us analyze the facts. The large majority of members & representatives are from government & lobby groups.

* The last time they posted a newsletter was more than 16 months ago ( http://www.co2re.ca/publications/default.htm ).

* The last time they posted a residential sector article was more than 19 months ago ( http://www.co2re.ca/resarticles.htm ).

* The last time they posted a commercial sector article was more than 25 months ago ( http://www.co2re.ca/commarticles.htm ).

Either not a very active group or totally incompetent in updating web pages.... And as I pointed out in a previous post - every grant offered is 100% subsidized by taxpayers.

But what really intrigues me is the following:


The CO2RE Interim Secretariat was formed in May 2002 and has been operating with support from the City of Edmonton’s Office of the Environment. The plan is to incorporate CO2RE as a stand-alone non-profit organization by January 2006. The City of Edmonton will continue to play a supportive role.

http://www.co2re.ca/about-org.htm

And I wonder why the City of Edmonton logo is on every page since they are now (supposedly) a stand alone non-profit organization... And since they are now a stand alone non-profit organization, why am I unable to find their financial statements & annual report....

McCauley resident
27-01-2008, 06:03 PM
we will be approaching the next ice age before "your" taxes would pay for this trip - hardly a lead role.
According to the "eco nuts" in the 1990's, the next ice age was going to be occurring right about now - and we would have no ozone layer left..... :-D

But those pesky facts proved them wrong - so they created a "hockey stick graph" to prove a global warming catastrophe. But they lied about the hockey stick & the increase in global temperatures once again proved them wrong.

So they renamed it climate change because the climate always changes - the facts would now prove they knew what they were talking about...

Which now guarantees them government funding - so long as they get paychecks & get to go on junkets, they are happy.


But I will always remember the worldwide DDT ban these eco nuts implemented - more than 2 million Africans died annually - but what is a few million deaths here & there so long as they get their paychecks...

grish
27-01-2008, 06:42 PM
you make it sound like the science reported in relation to the ozone layer was wrong and that the problem just went away on its own without any intervention whatsoever:

http://www.epa.gov/Ozone/science/sc_fact.html

read all the way to the end. do some searching for other info. educate yourself before making anymore of the outlandship statements about the "eco nuts" who in this case include pretty much every resepctable scientist in pretty much every respectable country.

kcantor
27-01-2008, 06:47 PM
you make it sound like the science reported in relation to the ozone layer was wrong and that the problem just went away on its own without any intervention whatsoever:

http://www.epa.gov/Ozone/science/sc_fact.html

read all the way to the end. do some searching for other info. educate yourself before making anymore of the outlandship statements about the "eco nuts" who in this case include pretty much every resepctable scientist in pretty much every respectable country.
which does not make them infallible - like McCauley resident, i remember the dire predictions that we would be severely embroiled in coping with the next ice age by 2020 if we didn't do all those things they insist we now need to do to prevent global warming (although how it will affect global warming on mars which is occuring to nearly identical degrees as it is here on earth is unclear to me).

lux
27-01-2008, 07:26 PM
you make it sound like the science reported in relation to the ozone layer was wrong and that the problem just went away on its own without any intervention whatsoever:

http://www.epa.gov/Ozone/science/sc_fact.html

read all the way to the end. do some searching for other info. educate yourself before making anymore of the outlandship statements about the "eco nuts" who in this case include pretty much every resepctable scientist in pretty much every respectable country.
which does not make them infallible - like McCauley resident, i remember the dire predictions that we would be severely embroiled in coping with the next ice age by 2020 if we didn't do all those things they insist we now need to do to prevent global warming (although how it will affect global warming on mars which is occuring to nearly identical degrees as it is here on earth is unclear to me).

Boy I sure hope we don't waste any taxpayers money on exploring mars or doing climate research there... that might add to the science on global warming and change our understanding of it.

But I know of a pothole that needs filling and I sure hope mars exploration doesn't occur because we might learn something from it.

And this is not just a red herring argument when I bring up the pothole because I'm actually part of the secret lobbyist conspiracy...

McCauley, I'm not a moderator. Would it help you understand that you're off base if I stooped to name calling?

Bryguy
28-01-2008, 03:09 AM
According to carbonfootprint.com, Iveson's Bali flight itself sent 3.308 tonnes of planet-ravaging CO2 into our atmosphere.
I believe that's very misleading. How can one person booking a flight be solely responsible for all of that extra CO2? Sure, if it was a private plane that's one thing but I assume the flight was likely to happen regardless if Iveson boarded the plane or not. Worst case scenario Iveson is responsible for all the extra CO2 emitted compared to if he was never on the plane.
Sounds more like you are against long distance flights in general.

Re: CO2RE

And I wonder why the City of Edmonton logo is on every page since they are now (supposedly) a stand alone non-profit organization... And since they are now a stand alone non-profit organization, why am I unable to find their financial statements & annual report....
Again I ask have you tried to contact said group directly for information? I think it would be a far more productive and faster way to get your questions answered than complaining about them on this forum.


But I will always remember the worldwide DDT ban these eco nuts implemented - more than 2 million Africans died annually - but what is a few million deaths here & there so long as they get their paychecks...
I'm shocked. How exactly are those 2 million deaths directly linked to the ban on DDT? It sounds, to me, like another misleading and unjustified fact.


I believe I understand your conclusions McCauley however I do not agree or support your facts leading up to that conclusion.


For a change of pace let me go back to the topic at hand...

So is Iveson going to be true to his "environmental responsibility" platform? Or is he going to prove the junket was just to pad his resume. Given he was recently elected, and as mentioned is currently still inexperienced, there is plenty of time left for him to find his bearings and attempt to be true to his platform.
Personally I believe the trip was a good way to help him gain experience in his role.

McCauley resident
28-01-2008, 04:28 AM
you make it sound like the science reported in relation to the ozone layer was wrong and that the problem just went away on its own without any intervention whatsoever:

http://www.epa.gov/Ozone/science/sc_fact.html

read all the way to the end. do some searching for other info. educate yourself before making anymore of the outlandship statements about the "eco nuts" who in this case include pretty much every resepctable scientist in pretty much every respectable country.

I just did the research - you lose - but I do note that every respectable scientist said to ban DDT's to save birds ( http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.html ).

Although the World Health Organization supported using using DDT to eradicate malaria in 1955, they were out lobbied by the eco nuts in the 1970's.

Forget about Sri Lanka which dropped from 70,000 cases of malaria per year to 17 in 1973 - that is just a coincidence. Just look at the bright side - millions of Africans died so eco nuts could attend conferences & junkets saving the planet.


Sort of reminds me of the "new gasoline" these eco nuts are now promoting - just force governments to use corn to produce ethyl alcohol - let us just forget that corn is the staple food for many third world countries.

Those living on less than a dollar a day are wilting away from malnutrition - millions are suffering thanks to the eco nuts - which of course will justify a taxpayer funded junket to save the world from those greedy corporations....

When China (of all countries) has banned corn from ethanol production so they can feed their people - China who ships every environmentally scary product to North America - for some strange reason I believe the eco nuts are idealistic lunatics who believe "the theory" justifies millions of real people dying...

McCauley resident
28-01-2008, 04:47 AM
For a change of pace let me go back to the topic at hand...


So is Iveson going to be true to his "environmental responsibility" platform? Or is he going to prove the junket was just to pad his resume.
Given he was recently elected, and as mentioned is currently still inexperienced, there is plenty of time left for him to find his bearings and attempt to be true to his platform.

Personally I believe the trip was a good way to help him gain experience in his role.
Yes - let us get back to the topic at hand... The environmental responsibility concept was supported by the City of Edmonton's recent land purchase of 70 hectares in the river valley - that was probably Edmonton's environmental shining moment over the past 20 years.

Iveson gets no credit for that - none whatsoever since that initiative was done by prior City Councillors.....

And until he gets the river cleaned up so we can eat the fish we catch, he remains all fluff & no action.... :?

Medwards
28-01-2008, 10:13 AM
So McCauley, that took all of about 2 minutes to copy and paste. Do you need me to do other research for you as well, next time you post? Cause each time you do, I have no problem. The more you type, the more I realize how inconceivability some of your notions are.

When the moderators stoop to name calling, I know I am on the right track.......... :wink:


I see no name calling... nice try :)

glasshead
28-01-2008, 10:17 AM
Iveson gets no credit for that - none whatsoever since that initiative was done by prior City Councillors.....

And until he gets the river cleaned up so we can eat the fish we catch, he remains all fluff & no action.... :?

Once again, please do some research . Edmonton does not have jurisdiction over waterways like the North Saskatchewan River. It is the province and federal authorities that approve or license discharges into the river. If you are concerned about it, complain to Alberta Environment or the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The city of Edmonton has approval from both Alberta Environment and Federal Fisheries (Environment Canada) to discharge their treated municipal wastewater as do all the other industries along the North Saskatchewan.

To my knowledge, the city runs river bank cleanups, but that is the extent of what they could do for "river cleanup", unless requested by the rpovince or federal jurisdiction.

McCauley resident
28-01-2008, 10:48 AM
I see no name calling... nice try :)
Politely worded "lazy & stupid"......... :roll:



Once again, please do some research . Edmonton does not have jurisdiction over waterways like the North Saskatchewan River. It is the province and federal authorities that approve or license discharges into the river. If you are concerned about it, complain to Alberta Environment or the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The city of Edmonton has approval from both Alberta Environment and Federal Fisheries (Environment Canada) to discharge their treated municipal wastewater as do all the other industries along the North Saskatchewan.

To my knowledge, the city runs river bank cleanups, but that is the extent of what they could do for "river cleanup", unless requested by the rpovince or federal jurisdiction.

I should do some research? Why? I know I will never find Edmonton's jurisdiction over greenhouse gas - thank you for agreeing with me that Iveson was 100% out of his jurisdiction when he took the junket to Bali.......

And maybe - just maybe you should take a walk along the river bank then count the number of storm sewers taking pollutants from our city streets directly into the North Saskatchewan River - where did you think those sewers were going?????

I will help you with your research - http://www.edmonton.ca/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_2_2868259_0_0_18/

snakes on a blog
28-01-2008, 10:54 AM
And until he gets the river cleaned up so we can eat the fish we catch, he remains all fluff & no action.... :?
Dude, rivers are the jurisdiction of the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans under the Fisheries Act in conjunction with the respective provincial department. in the case of Alberta that would be Sustainable Resources Development, Fish and Wildlife. Go talk to neo-conservative icon Ted Morton, the minister responsible for SRD. in any case how would a city councilor be able to control the emissions into the NSR watershed outside of Edmonton's boundary?

by the way, you're taking this way off topic.

glasshead
28-01-2008, 11:08 AM
I should do some research? Why? I know I will never find Edmonton's jurisdiction over greenhouse gas - thank you for agreeing with me that Iveson was 100% out of his jurisdiction when he took the junket to Bali.......

And maybe - just maybe you should take a walk along the river bank then count the number of storm sewers taking pollutants from our city streets directly into the North Saskatchewan River - where did you think those sewers were going?????

I will help you with your research - http://www.edmonton.ca/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_2_2868259_0_0_18/

First of all, please don't put words into my mouth - Iveson's portfolio is the environment, Edmonton has committed to following through on greenhouse gas reduction, and thus, his trip was justified.

Second, I will repeat again, do some research. Edmonton is authorized, I will repeat for emphasis, Authorized by provincial and Federal authorities to discharge into the river with its existing systems; both treated sanitary and storm sewer. If you feel Edmonton is not doing a sufficient job, contact provincial and federal authorities.

grish
28-01-2008, 11:11 AM
I just did the research - you lose - but I do note that every respectable scientist said to ban DDT's to save birds ( http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.html ).

I think rather than me loosing, every time you do some research we all win!

You talked about ozone layer and how the fear has dissipated without any intervention. nice to see you can stay on topic for Look at that! It is cold outside! Where was I? :lol:

McCauley resident
28-01-2008, 12:49 PM
Edmonton is authorized, I will repeat for emphasis, Authorized by provincial and Federal authorities to discharge into the river with its existing systems; both treated sanitary and storm sewer. If you feel Edmonton is not doing a sufficient job, contact provincial and federal authorities.
Edmonton is not authorized - Edmonton is forced to meet certain standards - that is why all those man made stormwater lakes were built in the newer districts. The water there is of such low quality that the City of Edmonton Sewers Bylaw #9425 , section 28(1) proudly states:


“No person shall wade, swim, boat, canoe, surf, sail, fish or conduct other recreational activities which may result in contact with the water in City-owned stormwater management facilities, unless permitted by the City Manager.”

Edmonton is so environmentally friendly that it is a danger to our health to come in contact with the water......... :?

And that is just in the newer districts where rain & snow goes into the sewers. In the older districts, the water goes directly into the river which is why health regulations state eating more than one pike per month is a danger to ones health.


As far as the goofy suggestion that because City Council passed a motion about greenhouse gases that this justifies junkets for Don Iveson at taxpayers expense; I still remember City Councils passing motions making their city a nuclear free zone so the Russians would not nuke us.

It was looney toon then - it is looney toon now.......

McCauley resident
28-01-2008, 12:51 PM
Look at that! It is cold outside! Where was I? :lol:
That darn global warming........ Thank goodness they renamed it climate change........... 8)

highlander
28-01-2008, 01:28 PM
I couldn't care less about the warnings on storm water ponds. They're dirty because the streets and lawns that are rained on have dog doo and goose poop on them.

The city really does do a poor job on the river. Things are improving, but after a summer storm the edges of the river are polluted with raw sewage floaties. No sanitary sewage should make it to the river. Ever.

If we really think the river is our jewel than we should be making progress far faster than we are now.

Other than a few phosphates, the river is reasonably clean as it enters Edmonton. Usually it stays that way throughout, but even if I know that a million gallons have washed the condom or tampon in the three weeks since the last storm, it still make me want to keep my feet out of the water.

grish
28-01-2008, 02:48 PM
Look at that! It is cold outside! Where was I? :lol:
That darn global warming........ Thank goodness they renamed it climate change........... 8)

it is the oblivious nuts who renamed it "climate change" thinking the public will be more receptive. call it what you want, but is it not better to err on the side of caution?

raz0469
28-01-2008, 03:39 PM
Well, since this topic is COMPLETELY off the rails I may as well jump in.


Edmonton is not authorized - Edmonton is forced to meet certain standards - that is why all those man made stormwater lakes were built in the newer districts. The water there is of such low quality that the City of Edmonton Sewers Bylaw #9425 , section 28(1) proudly states:

They don't have those stormwater ponds because it's too dangerous to treat or dump into the river or something. They're there for torrential downfalls. Instead of the storm sewer backing up into basements, it'll back up into the stormwater ponds. And yes, of course they water is not going to be clean or safe for swimming or consumption. That runoff comes from streets, roof gutters, god knows where. There's a ton of bacteria, pollutants, and who knows what else. Everything from motor oil and anti-freeze to dog crap. What do you expect? Every house to have it's own sewage treatment plant? At least we aren't like half the cities in the world, who just dump raw sewage into their lakes, rivers, and oceans.


And that is just in the newer districts where rain & snow goes into the sewers. In the older districts, the water goes directly into the river which is why health regulations state eating more than one pike per month is a danger to ones health.

Completely false. In some of the older districts, mostly downtown, there is indeed combined sanitary and storm sewers. Which means ALL of it gets treated before being put into the river. Not that NONE of it gets treated. Get your facts straight. Yes, in newer districts the storm sewers go directly to the river while the sanitary sewers are treated first.

It's completely impossible and unfeasible for any city of any size to be expected to treat ALL of the rain and meltwater that collects within it's boundaries before draining it into the drainage basin in which it resides. What that has to do with a $3,000 climate change junket, I have no idea.


I still remember City Councils passing motions making their city a nuclear free zone so the Russians would not nuke us.

Are you that out of touch with reality? Such declarations were made by numerous municipalities and states as statements of their opposition to nuclear power. Not because they were nicely asking the Soviets to not bomb them. If you can mischaracterize such a simple issue, it's no wonder most people on this board disagree with virtually everything you have to say.


The city really does do a poor job on the river. Things are improving, but after a summer storm the edges of the river are polluted with raw sewage floaties. No sanitary sewage should make it to the river. Ever.

As far as I'm aware, no raw sewage ever enters the river intentionally from Edmonton's sanitary sewers, with the exception of unforeseen emergencies of course. There might be crossed connections here and there, that's not uncommon. But those are fixed as they make themselves known. I'd be willing to bet most of the pollutants in the river come from agricultural/farming operations.

raz0469
28-01-2008, 03:41 PM
Look at that! It is cold outside! Where was I? :lol:
That darn global warming........ Thank goodness they renamed it climate change........... 8)

it is the oblivious nuts who renamed it "climate change" thinking the public will be more receptive. call it what you want, but is it not better to err on the side of caution?

No, it was changed to counter just the comment that McCauley made: climate does not change uniformly, and indeed just because the climate on average is getting warmer there's no reason for people to expect it to get warmer everywhere. So the term "climate change" was considered to be more accurate and useful than "global warming."

Makes perfect sense to me.

highlander
28-01-2008, 04:14 PM
The city really does do a poor job on the river. Things are improving, but after a summer storm the edges of the river are polluted with raw sewage floaties. No sanitary sewage should make it to the river. Ever.

As far as I'm aware, no raw sewage ever enters the river intentionally from Edmonton's sanitary sewers, with the exception of unforeseen emergencies of course. There might be crossed connections here and there, that's not uncommon. But those are fixed as they make themselves known. I'd be willing to bet most of the pollutants in the river come from agricultural/farming operations.

Well, actually the plan is that in every large rainfall 'some' raw sewage from the old combined sewers makes it's way into the River. Yes, they are working on it, but until every bit of combined is replaced there will be problems. It's not unforseen either. The city knows exactly how much rain needs to fall before there's an overflow, and they have estimates on how many times it will happen each year.

From what I understood from the last I read about the issue it will be decades before it takes a 20 year storm to put poop in the river.

It's something that needs to be dealt with before riverside beaches are built.

GizmoForMayor
28-01-2008, 04:39 PM
Grish et al, I appreciate your effort, but I don't know why you bother...

For me, we are past the stage of arguing whether climate change is real and caused by human activity or not. There wíll always be those who for one reason or another think it's all baloney, but we can't possibly wait until we've convinced every last one of them. Every minute we are busy arguing about this issue we are not focusing our energy where it is really needed.

McCauley, Kcantor, etc... I don't mean to slag you personally as I also have a couple of friends who feel the same way you do and I can understand to a point. But lets look at this logically:
You are skeptical because you remember a time when scientists predicted the earth would go into a deep freeze by 2020, and they ended up being wrong. Fair enough.
Fast forward to today. You have literally 99.99% percent of scientists agreeing (which was never the case during the 'deep freeze scare') that global climate change is caused by human activity and could easily alter our planet beyond all recognition within a few generations. You now have two options:

1) You can say you've seen it all before and won't do a thing about it because they were wrong about it last time.
2) Even if you are not convinced they are right this time around, you look at the possible consequences and you decide you won't take the chance.

Given the fact that many other countries have already started to deal with climate change successfully without disruption to their economies, option 2 seems pretty reasonable to me. I believe sometimes we have to put our faith in science, particularly if it something that has the ability to destroy the quality of life we enjoy now for our children and grandchildren. From my point of view, option A is not only stubborn and selfish, also also incredibly dangerous.

McCauley resident
28-01-2008, 08:02 PM
You are skeptical because you remember a time when scientists predicted the earth would go into a deep freeze by 2020, and they ended up being wrong. Fair enough.

Fast forward to today. You have literally 99.99% percent of scientists agreeing (which was never the case during the 'deep freeze scare') that global climate change is caused by human activity and could easily alter our planet beyond all recognition within a few generations.

The majority of scientists agree? Not true........ http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57605

Remember a time when scientists predicted the deep freeze? We are talking 10 years ago - not flat earth society time...

These scientists predicted a catastrophic rise in sea levels by meters as glaciers melted ( http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0420_040420_earthday.html ). Yet glaciers started melting on Kilmanjaro almost 100 years ago ( http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/0923_030923_kilimanjaroglaciers.html ).

And that global warming catastrophy got messed up last year as we started to go back to global cooling ( http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071219/COMMENTARY/10575140 ).

As I said before, the new term is "climate change" because it guarantees paychecks & junkets... :?



And that is just in the newer districts where rain & snow goes into the sewers. In the older districts, the water goes directly into the river which is why health regulations state eating more than one pike per month is a danger to ones health.
Completely false. In some of the older districts, mostly downtown, there is indeed combined sanitary and storm sewers. Which means ALL of it gets treated before being put into the river.
Completely false? I don't think so............


Stormwater runoff from streets and properties drain into Edmonton's storm sewers through over 50,000 stormwater catchbasins. The city's 1800 km of storm sewers drain through stormwater management lakes (in the newer areas of the city) and then carry on to discharge into the North Saskatchewan River or local creeks from about 260 outfalls.

Unfortunately, stormwater runoff contains contaminants that can cause problems in the river. Fertilizers, pesticides, motor oil, pet waste and other things swept up in the streets can cause unnatural growth in river plant life, harm fish and other aquatic life, or present a health risk to people who swallow up a mouthful of river water during or immediately following a rain storm.

From: http://www.edmonton.ca/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_2_2868259_0_0_18/

McCauley resident
28-01-2008, 09:09 PM
I still remember City Councils passing motions making their city a nuclear free zone so the Russians would not nuke us.

Are you that out of touch with reality? Such declarations were made by numerous municipalities and states as statements of their opposition to nuclear power. Not because they were nicely asking the Soviets to not bomb them. If you can mischaracterize such a simple issue, it's no wonder most people on this board disagree with virtually everything you have to say.

People on this board who “disagree with virtually everything” I have to say are upset because I know what I am talking about & confront them with proof….

In the 1980’s there was fear running rampant over world wide destruction as the U.S. & Russians faced off. Provinces & municipalities were tripping over themselves declaring themselves Nuclear Weapons Free Zones. It had absolutely nothing to do with nuclear power – absolutely nothing to do with nuclear power.



78% of Torontonians who voted in the November 1982 municipal election voted yes to support worldwide nuclear disarmament in a special referendum question added to the election ballot. Toronto City Council voted to declare Toronto a nuclear weapons free zone three months later.

http://www.activistmagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=705&Itemid=56

Actually, look at the complete list of provinces and territories that officially declared themselves Nuclear Weapons Free Zones at:

http://www.pgs.ca/updir/nuclear_weapon_free_zones.pdf

I patiently await your apology for accusing me of “being out of touch with reality”…….. :wink:

moahunter
28-01-2008, 09:35 PM
I don't see what the endless debate on global warming has to do with spending 3k on sending a Councilor to learn about a topical issue. Regardless of whether global warming is true or not, or whether it will be good or bad, I'd like our Councilors to be well informed by attending global conferences where ideas are exchanged. Especially when the trips are this cheap. The more our Councilors can travel and bring back ideas that will enhance our city, or show off our city to other cities, the better IMO.

grish
28-01-2008, 09:45 PM
I patiently await your apology for accusing me of “being out of touch with reality”…….. :wink:

ok, read every post you have made above... :lol: 8)

McCauley resident
28-01-2008, 10:45 PM
Regardless of whether global warming is true or not, or whether it will be good or bad.
:shock:

Medwards
28-01-2008, 11:26 PM
Back on topic or this thread will get my recommendation for locking...

snakes on a blog
29-01-2008, 01:04 PM
Back on topic or this thread will get my recommendation for locking...you get my vote

This debate won't end when posters take the topic waaaaaaay off in a tangent. What the h*ll does storm sewers have to do with a councilor's $3000 climate change junket?

raz0469
29-01-2008, 01:18 PM
Remember a time when scientists predicted the deep freeze? We are talking 10 years ago - not flat earth society time...

It was over 30 years ago, and it was a couple news articles based on one or two scientific studies that were soon discarded upon further research (basically the earth had been cooling because there was so much soot and aerosols in the air. However once smokestack pollution was cleaned up, those aerosols and soot decreased in the atmosphere and the brief cooling period in the 70's was soon reversed and the temperature continued to rise).

Newsweek ran the one that people love to quote these days. To compare a single study and a couple news articles to the massive consensus about climate change today is absolute folly.


Completely false? I don't think so............

You claimed that old areas with combined sewers dumped them directly into the river. Your talk about stormwater contaminants has nothing to do with that claim. I commented in my post that of course stormwater management ponds would be unsafe, due to the things they pick up along the way. This is the same in every city on the face of the earth. None treat all of their stormwater before allowing it to return to natural water ways. It is completely impossible.

So again, Edmonton does not dump raw sewage into the river, except for occasional cases as outlined by highlander when the combined sewers downtown are overwhelmed. What any of this has to do with the Bali conference, I have no idea.


Back on topic or this thread will get my recommendation for locking...

While I guess I can be blamed somewhat for continuing the derail, I'd agree that this thread is so far off the tracks there's little point in letting it continue.

Now that my last words are in :P

McCauley resident
29-01-2008, 05:06 PM
Completely false? I don't think so............
You claimed that old areas with combined sewers dumped them directly into the river. Your talk about stormwater contaminants has nothing to do with that claim.

Once again – a complete lie – here are my posts with the exact quotes:


count the number of storm sewers taking pollutants from our city streets directly into the North Saskatchewan River (9:48 am)


rain & snow goes into the sewers. In the older districts, the water goes directly into the river (11:49 am)



is the Environment not his portfolio within his civic duties?

For some strange reason I thought it would be okay to discuss what environment issues the City of Edmonton could / should work on – something like the water that comes off our streets and goes into stormwater lakes where it is unhealthy to touch the water & the North Saskatchewan River where it is dangerous to eat the fish we catch…

And the last time I checked, this is the Political Forum on the Connect2Edmonton web site – how could this discussion be off topic?


But I have to admit I will never be unable to convince someone who believes that so long as the facts do not matter or whether the issue is based in reality, it is okay to send elected officials on junkets.

And since it appears moahunter is speaking for many on this topic thread, I will give them the last word…


I don't see what the endless debate on global warming has to do with spending 3k on sending a Councilor to learn about a topical issue. Regardless of whether global warming is true or not, or whether it will be good or bad, I'd like our Councilors to be well informed by attending global conferences where ideas are exchanged.

bagould
29-01-2008, 08:50 PM
http://www.thegatewayonline.ca/after-iveson-goes-away-the-pundits-come-out-to-play-20080128-1744.html

After Iveson goes away, the pundits come out to play

The Gateway
Brian Gould, Opinion Staff
Tuesday, 29 January 2008


...Imagine how this would have went down if he had refused to attend on the basis of emissions: Iveson proposes some manner of environmental measure the pundits don’t like (such as his current proposal to curb drive-throughs), and the CTF trots out the exact same “hypocrisy run amok” headline. After all, how dare the councillor propose a regulation to lower greenhouse gas emissions when he didn’t even care enough to attend an important climate change conference? Either way, the right-wing smear campaign would have continued unabated.

raz0469
30-01-2008, 09:18 AM
Once again – a complete lie – here are my posts with the exact quotes:

Quote:
count the number of storm sewers taking pollutants from our city streets directly into the North Saskatchewan River (9:48 am)


Quote:
rain & snow goes into the sewers. In the older districts, the water goes directly into the river (11:49 am)

And once again, all storm sewers in all districts drain directly to the river in Edmonton. Not just the older districts. And once again, that is no different than pretty much any other modern city. So what was your point, exactly?

grish
30-01-2008, 10:25 AM
I know! we need to find ways to divert our storm water to Bali for less than $3000 otherwise the global warming will cause the ozone layer to go through a climate change via DDT application!