Please send comments and contributions to
Moving Oil
There is more than one way to move oil. The theory that turning off a pipeline tap will reduce consumption fails to take into account that moving oil through pipes is just one part of the energy system.  It also assumes that the amount of oil burned is a function of supply alone, whereas a systems approach would likely reveal that it is driven by demand.

Systems approach
The insights and understanding of limits to growth developed by the Club of Rome during four decades is rooted in the application of systems analysis to the issues that it has addressed.  A national association, such as CACOR, should deliberately apply a systems approach to the issues that it addresses and seek to share whatever understanding it develops with like-minded organizations and decision-makers. 

Please click here for backgrounder: JGH9440.pdf

John Hollins,
Member of CACOR

Myth: we have to save the earth. 
Frankly, the earth doesn't need to be saved. Nature doesn't give a hoot if human beings are here or not. The planet has survived cataclysmic and catastrophic changes for millions upon millions of years. Over that time, it is widely believed, 99 percent of all species have come and gone while the planet has remained. 

Saving the environment is really about saving our environment -- making it safe for ourselves, our children, and the world as we know it. If more people saw the issue as one of saving themselves, we would probably see increased motivation and commitment to actually do so. 

Robert M. Lilienfeld, management consultant
 and William L. Rathje, archaeologist

Global warming: Understood
It's not just the IPCC that is concerned about the effects of global warming. 
According to Standard and Poor's (2014 May 14), climate change is one of two global mega-trends that dominate global economic risks during this century. Global warming, it says, will put downward pressure on sovereign ratings, with poorer nations hit the worst.

Standard and Poor's is simply catching up with the global insurance industry, which recognized the effect of global warming on its business more than a decade ago.

In late 2013, Canada2020 published a Canada Climate Opinion survey done by the Université de Montréal.  In response to the question From what you've read and heard, is there solid evidence that the average temperature on earth has been getting warmer over the past four decades?  The response for Canada was: 
    Yes 81%, 
    No 12%, 
    Not sure 8%. 
(Results for this and other questions, by region, may be found here.)

If mainstream global corporations and Canadians at large understand the consequences of global warming, why are so many environmentalists still preoccupied with explaining it?  

We should take this issue as understood. Like Standard and Poor's, we should refer to it as global warming caused by air pollution - a term that resonates with most people - not climate change: there is more to global warming than climate change, which is inherently variable and opens a door for the 12% of Canadians who said No. Let's concentrate on what can be done, if anything, and adaptation to inevitable change. 
John Hollins,
Member of CACOR

John Hollins,
14 Nov 2014, 06:48