Your "drag" on the enviroment?....
1. you probaly live in a house twice the size you need that uses
2. You drive a 4x4
3.you own a jet boat
All of these add to the pollution problem by consumming fuel or use excess amounts.What happens to use when we have no more enviroment to enjoy? What happens to use when we have to nore fuel to burn? The time to chnage for " everyone" is now.

opion1

The sky is falling, the sky is falling!!

Go back to your hovel and ride your donkey to work each day, provided of course, that you do work because god only knows what kind of carbon footprint your employer leaves behind and you wouldn't want to be a party to that would you?

Regarding Olympics in BC in 2010

The writer makes some key points with the pollution that will be generated surrounding not only the operation but also the time it took to build the games.
However, we must still maintain a level of personal responsibility and take charge of OUR part in the bigger spectrum of the problem.

One cannot point and go "whaaa why do i need to change while others pollute"! Lets remove our soothers and worry about our own contribution to this global problem.
Did I split hairs regarding the use of jet boats and SUV’s ect maybe so in some eyes ....however, how else do we describe the problem?

The point is simply this” Let’s be more mind full of our habits and begin the change”

Am i 100% free of this sin? "NO" but by golly i sure am working on doing things better. I change my bad habits ...not defend them. Cheers

Here we have a classic example of the consequences of the operation of the existing financial system which can only carry on by endless accelerating expansion of production--merely to generate financial incomes which will permit past, not current, production to be claimed by consumers.

Until THAT is changed 'macro-economically', ALL the efforts made by government to force us 'micro-economically' to "...tighten our belts, use less, and conserve more..." are utterly useless in their attempts to mitigate adverse effects on the environment.

The proposition right now is that you must produce ever MORE to have the continued right to an income that buys you ever LESS.

But which generates the greater 'pollution'~ the current 'consumption' (of driving the 4x4, or using the jet boat, or keeping your house heated, or your lawn green), or the future 'production' we have to try to pay MORE for by foregoing all the pleasurable things we've already worked for? Just to try to keep a flawed accounting system we collectively term "finance" seemingly functional. It is an effort in futility that can, and will, only bring increased misery to all of us.

I dont give a rats ass anymore about this governments agenda and the alarmists.. I own 1 quad, 1 snowmobile, f-150 pick up. Soon buying a jet boat..The carbon tax isnt a deterent to make me use less fuel its just a motivation to make more money in less time to offset the tax.This is a free country i have the right to own these things because its a big part of my life exploring our back country. I am aware of the envrionment. I pick up garbage, bottles and cans when im out doing these activitys. Im an avid recycler and i dont waste resources. I report wildfires and environmental damages. Im just at the point where myself and alot of others are getting sick of this government micro managing our lives especially when they arent leading by example..Maybe i might buy into the whole "climate action" but first our decision makers have to step up to the plate and show us what they are doing rather then forcing us to change. I dont know why people disagree with bens articles so much.. the guy has lived here pretty much his whole life, witnessed governments come and go so he has a very good grasp on what is going on.. Anyway thats my 2 cents.. Cheers!

We need to create a new country somewhere on planet earth, one in which all the environmentalists, greenies, tree huggers etc. can live in. They can live by all the rules that they would have the rest of us live by. They can have all the politicians, and the lawyers too.
Having said that, I also believe that having the counter opinion of the "save the planet, the sky is falling" brigade
is a good thing. We do need someone to keep an eye on things, or else this world will quickly become more and more polluted. I just think that the pendulum is swinging too far the other way now. And I fear for our very existence, because it appears that "the geeks shall inherit the earth", to twist a biblical prophecy.
metalman.

Item #8: 1 billion for the security for the 17 days of the 2010 Olympics? Over 50 million dollars per day? No way.

All the other items are valuable infrastructure additions and improvements and will be used for decades to come after the games.

The cost of expansion of the Vancouver Trade and Convention center for instance will be recovered over the years by the already pouring in additional bookings that otherwise would have gone to other cities on the West Coast, specifically Seattle and Portland.

And, using similar logic as those who ad infinitum defend the spending of a billion dollars on the building of the Fast Ferries and the propping up of the decrepit Prince Rupert pulmill with the argument that at least hundreds of workers had a job: The Olympics have created many thousands of well-paid steady construction jobs. Ask the workers if they are/were objecting to the Olympics!

"Originally the games were to cost $470 million dollars with a further $110 million going to the Legacy Now fund with the Feds and Province splitting 50-50."

I don't count the money spent on items #6 and #7 as direct spending for the Olympics and item #10 would have been required whether there would have been any Olympic games or not. The highway was built to absolute minimum unsafe standards and was becoming totally unable to handle even normal everyday traffic.

The green aspect: The USA apparently uses DAILY approximately 300,000 barrels of fossil fuel (three-hundred thousand every day!) to pursue its military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both of these conflicts were matters of deliberate choice and unnecessary. Can somebody please calculate how much *green energy* will have been *eaten up* by these adventures by the time some semblance of pre-war normalcy has been accomplished in those countries, if that day will ever come?

It's far better to spend some green energy on 17 days of peaceful international games than on endless years of warmongering.

Even those who (like me) were not in favour of hosting the games will see them take place in 2010.

In the meantime I am doing my own personal things to reduce my use of fossil fuels as much as possible.

Cheers!

Let’s not forget that the title of this is "Opinion 250"

I'm sure that even Ben agrees that this would be rather boring if nothing was brought up for debate.

It is the means of debate that constitutes freedom, democracy and change. Would this world be for the better if we followed only one man’s view? I think not!

I am glad that Opinion 250 allows us to voice our thoughts and ideas regardless if they are the main stream of others thinking.
I am happy that this forum lets us all say our piece and that it does not advocate censorship!

Socredible .....
"The proposition right now is that you must produce ever MORE to have the continued right to an income that buys you ever LESS."

Exactly!!!!!

"But which generates the greater 'pollution'"

That is easy from my point of view. The physical things generate THE pollution. The economic system is not tangible, not phsical. On top of that, it is totally man made. By changing it, we will not affect the earth directly in any way. Indirectly, yes.

So, the question becomes how do we change it to change the ways?

For me, the most obvious one right now that is starring us in the face is the notion that CO2 created through biological materials currently in the growing stage get a free ride on the premise that they will turn into CO2 in any case, which is, of course, not totally true.

But, the main thing about that is thast we can all of the sudden keep on using that form of energy like there is no tomorrow by the mere stroke of a pen. Food prices go up, slow growing vegetation such as trees are replaced in favour of fast growing farming crops. We are, in fact, "spendng" short term sequestered CO2 and will very quickly be running out of that as well. I liken it to discovering that we have a current account that still has money in it and thus we can use less from our trust account bequethed to us which we think is getting depleted, but the trustee is not allowing us to know how much is left in the trust account. Every time we think it is empty and someone cries wolf, we find some more money and now we are in a situation where no one is listening anymore about what appear to be false alarms.

So, we came up with this stupid free ride through bioenergy notion which will make us all feel good while keeping the spending ways going without a beat being missed.

I am looking for some brainiac(s) with charisma to come up with an idea which will do exactly the opposite and will charm the hell out of the general population so that rather than following the Pied Piper over the cliff we are all led to the end of the rainbow for that pot of gold we all deserve to allow us to live happily ever after.

"f-150 pick up"

good Lord ... time to get an F450 ....

Well said Getajob! And to you Ben I give a smile. I always enjoy reading you're posts. :) There will always be haters on here who can not refrain from insulting those for their oppinions and feelings. Do not let these poor pathetic people stop you from expressing yourselves.

Have a nice week all! :}

And I am STILL going on holiday's later on in July!
I will be doing a lot of driving both here and in the U.S. and I will NOT be intimidated by the price of fuel.
I have accepted the fact that this planned holiday will cost me more money.
So be it.
But what would be the cost if we all just holed up in our houses and did nothing and went nowhere?
If we stopped spending,we would pay a price for that too down the road,but that isn't what those we elect to high places want us to do anyway!
And it is interesting to note that because there are a lot of people staying home,both here and in the U.S.,the tourist industry is hurting bigtime.
And because of that,there are a lot of good deals to be found if we look arund.
Now excuse me... gotta go hook up the 5th.wheel for a weekend shakedown cruise!

Ever herd of the Roman Empire? Well today its called "third world country". And thats where we are going with our greed for "more and more".

Cheers

Cant wait till the day we find out the BC Government were funneling this two cent gas hike tax for there 2010 party.

Diplomat
Are you running for office?
Your post reads like a political advertisement targetting the other political parties in the province.

Everyone is forgetting or at least putting it in thre back of your minds. All your jobs depend on energy in one shape form or another. Your houses are built with wood that takes energy to harvest and process. Your F150 450 or whatever takes energy to produce has well to drive. Your food requires energy to grow and harvest as well as transporting to the stores. And a lot of people are employed building your toys,boats, skidoos, and golfing eguipment. What is this carbon tax rreally going to cost us.

Posted by: northman on July 3 2008 8:48 AM
I dont give a rats ass anymore about this governments agenda and the alarmists.. I own 1 quad, 1 snowmobile, f-150 pick up. Soon buying a jet boat..The carbon tax isnt a deterent to make me use less fuel its just a motivation to make more money in less time to offset the tax.This is a free country i have the right to own these things because its a big part of my life exploring our back country. I am aware of the envrionment. I pick up garbage, bottles and cans when im out doing these activitys. Im an avid recycler and i dont waste resources. I report wildfires and environmental damages. Im just at the point where myself and alot of others are getting sick of this government micro managing our lives especially when they arent leading by example..Maybe i might buy into the whole "climate action" but first our decision makers have to step up to the plate and show us what they are doing rather then forcing us to change. I dont know why people disagree with bens articles so much.. the guy has lived here pretty much his whole life, witnessed governments come and go so he has a very good grasp on what is going on.. Anyway thats my 2 cents.. Cheers!



Well said Northman, my feelings exactly.
I also own a jet boat, two sleds and a pickup that runs on LPG only and has for the past 19 years.

Why does the price of LPG go up when the price of gasoline goes up?
LPG is scrubbed from Natural gas and has nothing to do with crude oil, (the source of gasoline and diesel fuel). Anyway thats another story.

No one is going to tell me I cant carry on with my lifestyle because it offends them due to my perceived carbon(BS)footprint. I will be out on the river this weekend and will probably burn up $200 - $300 worth of gasoline. If that offends any one I have one thing to say to you, Kiss my.............. and mind your own F................business, get a life.
People are falling for this BS and it's all to the benefit of those that have made up this crap. They are cashing in on it. People need to wake up and smell the bacon.
Seems the alarmists believe everything they read.

How often do you hear about what jets and trains are doing to our air, never.
They are the worst polluters on the planet and get away with it with government blessings.
The middle class pays for the polluters in this country and always have.
Our gov is seeing to it that there will no longer be a middle class in this country.
Soon there won't be anyone to pay for these rich leaches in our country because the rest of us will be collecting welfare.

Ever notice how anything that could save you money and stops your money from getting into the hands of tax collectors or corporations is usually made to be illegal?
Think about it.

Rant over

Lostfaith: "Diplomat Are you running for office?"

Now there is an idea! I might just do that since I still have some faith left. It would be a very valuable experience, I am sure!

Naw, forget it. People are afraid of the thing that is called *common sense* so my chances would be slim, at best.

Can't sell steaks to those who are used to and prefer baloney.

:-)

Run for office? ... maybe run for the John ....

;-)

http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/olympicvillage

The so called athletes village.

"After the 2010 Winter Games, those buildings used by the athletes will provide approximately 1,100 residential units, including 250 affordable housing units, a community centre, daycare, retail and service space for the new residents of Southeast False Creek."

So that makes it about $290,000 per unit on average for "affordable" housing Vancouver style. There will probably be some money needed for some minor cahnges as it moves from athletes village to housing .... but to say that that is a "waste" of money or energy is really stretching it. I am being kind with those words!!!!

I think one needs to look at a few other things if one wants to find some missuse of dollars and I am sure we all can find that without looking to hard.

Most of the other investments that are done under the guise of olympic need are similar to the housing. There are certainly others that are not.

"No one is going to tell me I cant carry on with my lifestyle because it offends them due to my perceived carbon(BS)footprint. I will be out on the river this weekend and will probably burn up $200 - $300 worth of gasoline. If that offends any one I have one thing to say to you, Kiss my.............. and mind your own F................business, get a life"

I agree. It's completely up to the individual to choose to partake in those activities, thereby paying more carbon tax than you would've had you not burned all of that fuel. Isn't that sort of the point?

The way I see it, I SHOULD pay more carbon tax pulling my boat with my 1/2 ton and running around the lake for a day, than the guy who puts his canoe on the top of his van and paddles himself around. At least a good chunk of the amount of tax paid is within my control. I'd rather have that than some hidden tax that gets applied to everyone equally.

Not only that, but the guy in the canoe is less likely to have a heart and weight problem, thus saving the taxpayers quite a bit.

Actually the likelihood of the canoe guy to be in better shape is probably NOT due to his canoeing. I mean really, how much canoeing does one have to do to stay fit and healthy. Like ALL human studies it is nearly impossible to separate cause and effect. The canoe guy is likely an active sort or he wouldnt bother canoeing at all, too much work. If people who canoe tend to be fitter, which came first, the fitness or the canoe?
Off the topic i know but i hate all the mistken conclusions drawn from human studies.
On topic, i think we can see what the problem is here. If you think Ben's modest (energy wise ) lifestyle is still too carbon extravagant then you are a crazy in my book. You cant take away all the perks of hard work and industry and expect our lifestyles not to hit the tank. If our economy hits the tank we will cease caring about the environment altogether until we are happy again. If i have to live in a little box home in a city with little or no motorized transport then i dont think i will be a happy, productive citizen. In fact i will just pack up and move somewhere where the people are not so damned extreme in their reactions to the crisis of the day.
My kids learned the other day (at school) that camp fires are bad because the produce CO2. Some people are just plain crazy. Period.

Great post, NMG because it goes right to the heart of the matter, in my opinion.

Owl, too late.

Caranmacil, looks like the teachers don't know that the carbon from burning wood is classified as *carbon neutral.*

Amazing.

Sorry Ben... being Canadian makes you an energy pig, big time. Canada is in the top 5 highest energy consumtion country's per capita.

We need to get our minds out of the past and plant them firmly in the future.

this sure is a topic that requires more review! Good points made on many sides..

great artical Ben, just had to get my 2 cents in on this carbon tax, those figures are astounding!!
Im having a very hard time swallowing the limp excuse about making us change our habits in regards to a carbon foot print, what do you guys thinks ive been doing for most of my life?
i grew up in the 50's and 60's and was raised on reuse, handmedowns be frugal think of the starving kids in africa.... so ive done all that stuff they recomend put on a swetar turn down the heat, reinsulate.. yeah its all great in B.C if you live in Vancouver and make more than 140k a year
the Liberals have spent the last several years closing down hospitals, schools, public institutions, selling bc rail the list does go on dosen't it... as far as im concerned i'm driving even more!! , hey ya need serious medical attention? you have to drive hours if the regional hospital can't handle it, or just an appt for a specialist as most are down south in the big black hole ! oh they will fly you there if youur in the hospital but your on your own when they discharge you ..no ride back to where ever you flew from
And!! 10 million to administer it?? perhaps with that 10 million the government could have restored medical premiums and or lowered the cost of perscription drugs to the seniors of this province, thats whole other story the grand experiment on the elderly in this province.
I expect to see a whole new round of school closures as a result of the carbon tax, yeah takes real courage to slap on yet another tax on Joe & Jane lunch box I guess that takes the sting out of the last round of bills passed in the legislature the gag law, the election act to najme 2, you wont remember those as they have us all pissed over the carbon tax!... my last example.. my dad who is in his late 80's spent his climate action check on medical premiums 97 $... as asked in a previous column when is our end of the social contract going to be met by this government?

I agree with yur comment caranmacil that "Actually the likelihood of the canoe guy to be in better shape is probably NOT due to his canoeing."

You reached a conclusion from my post that it was ONLY because of the canoing. I would classify the power boat and the canoing as a likely indicator of health. That is, it is more likely that the paddler will be a more physically active person than the power boater. Then again, a lot of power boaters are also water skiers or boarder, so, it is not a perfect indicator, but likely an indicator nevertheless.

Well said Ben.

The propaganda surrounding the carbon tax only targets individuals and will affect their finances in a big way. If the government was serious about the CO2 it would in fact plant more trees. In case people have forgotten their elementary studies on photosynthesis tree "eat" CO2 and produce O2..so it would seem elementary to plant a tree! Yes, go hug one too! We need them to breathe :)

Canada is a big user of fossil fuels as is every other industrialized nation on earth. Plastic production uses much more petroleum than most realize. So here is an area that the average person can take a look at if you care to buy into the Henny Penny attitudes. Avoid plastics whenever possible. Tend your gardens and plant more. Go green as it were. Most vehicles are fuel efficient these days, so I wouldn't rush out and buy new or change to a hybrid imo. As others have stated on previous posts creating more demand for production causes more harm to the environment but the "damage" has already been done with newly produced vehicles sitting as inventory. Don't let anyone guilt trip you for that.
Governments would regulate industrial emissions and set standards for those emissions into our air sheds, water ways and lands if they truly wanted to something.
As for the amount being spent on the Olympics it is insanity when there are other items where the money is needed elsewhere not just wanted elsewhere. If we as a society focused on needs rather than delusions of wants, taxpayers probably wouldn't be feeling the crunch in their mothball ridden wallets.
The benefits from the Olympics will come in the way of infrastructure yes, and sooner than if we did not host. The question is would that money have been spent without the games? Maybe. Doesn't matter now though because it is done and the bills are coming in whether we like it or not.
Politicians and marketers all have a spin to push their agendas. We just have to learn to read between that to understand what is truly going on. I agree that this tax is merely a means to pay for the games. I think it is spin to capitalize on the environmental issues and avoids tackling the genuine environmental issues.
Yes, the Oil Companies are sucking us dry!!! AND the government should DO something about that! Our politicians are supposed to work for us so it is up to US to fight any policy, tax, or perceived unfair practice. Unite if you want it changed.

"My kids learned the other day (at school) that camp fires are bad because the produce CO2"

That's crazy!!!! Everyone knows they are bad because the flying embers can start forest fires and can get in your eye and cause blindness.

But how else is one going to learn how to firewalk?

Diplomat .... you said: "Caranmacil, looks like the teachers don't know that the carbon from burning wood is classified as *carbon neutral.* "

To me it looks like the teacher is teaching science ... not political science.....

;-)

BTW .... I really don't give a hoot (LOL) about camp fires. Go burn as many as you want as long as you do it carefully. Even inhale that wonderful wood smoke and stand downwind of a smoking fire and get your eyes all watery.

In the end however, you have created CO2 be it ever so little and inconsequential in the big scheme of things. And that CO2 is no different than if you were burning mined coal.

We exhale CO2 by the way.....

We never used to fight forest fires.
The amount of CO2 put into the atmosphere was astronomical from burning forests.

Now we fight forest fires and the amount of CO2 put into the air we breathe is very limited to what it once was from this source.
I don't believe for one minute that we have a CO2 problem on this planet.
I do believe we have very greedy money hungry people feeding us all a line of BS just to make them even richer.

tinyapplecork:"In case people have forgotten their elementary studies on photosynthesis tree "eat" CO2 and produce O2..so it would seem elementary to plant a tree!"

That is why the burning of wood is called *carbon neutral.* Nothing to do with politics, actually.

Forests are still burning everywhere. California comes to mind. Many fires are being left alone to burn out as there isn't enough equipment to fight them. Framers all over the third world still clear their fields of brush before planting by annual burning, the Amazon rain forest is being clear cut to make farmland and all the slash is being burned continuously. In fact the smoke can be seen in satellite pictures all the time.

Human and natural activity together are steadily putting vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere and a little campfire is not going to have the slightest impact on the overall situation.

"Diplomat"

The 2010 olympics do not benefit the TAX payers of the north. The buildings they are building for the Olympics, will not benefit the TAX payers of the north!! Why am I paying for this BS, when I can't ride my Harley down the local roads because of POTHOLES!! I get nothing for my tax dollars!! Quit making excuses for these "thieving thugs"!! If I was to steal this much money from anyone, they would put me in jail forever!!! WAKE UP!! Cut the crap with all the fancy words!! The politicians in this country, at all levels, are thieves, end of story!!!

Taxi

Taxi: "The politicians in this country, at all levels, are thieves, end of story!!!"

Sad state of affairs, indeed!

Hope that you are more wrong than right!

You are 100% right about the potholes, though! As for making excuses...I don't think so.

Last time I checked - this site is for voicing opinions. If you think mine are crap - well, that is your problem, not mine! Last time I checked Canada called itself a democracy which includes freedom of expression of personal views and opinions.

Send emails to the premier, the MLAs, the Mayor, the councilors, the Prime Minister (the feds are sharing the cost of 2010)and get a petition going about the potholes.

I have reported many potholes and I have asked some neighbors to do the same: They won't bother because it makes no difference, so they tell me.

You are right "diplomat", and that was my opinion and they are thieves!!! It is called, open up your eyes!! Or are you one of the few that have pleanty of wealth!! If that is the case, I guess tax discussions with the working stiff doesn't fall within your realm!!

And one more thing "diplomat", do you live anywhere near Prince George, or better still,anywhere close to northern BC!! We have had enough in Northern BC, it shows by the comments on this sight!! As someone else said, it is time for a "TEA PARTY" if you are old enough to know what that means!!

the new B.C. carbon tax / 2010 Olympic tax!!
That is the reality!!

"getajob on July 3 2008 9:12 AM

Let’s not forget that the title of this is "Opinion 250"

I'm sure that even Ben agrees that this would be rather boring if nothing was brought up for debate.

It is the means of debate that constitutes freedom, democracy and change. Would this world be for the better if we followed only one man’s view? I think not!

I am glad that Opinion 250 allows us to voice our thoughts and ideas regardless if they are the main stream of others thinking.

I am happy that this forum lets us all say our piece and that it does not advocate censorship!"

Couldn't agree more! Diplomat

"tinyapplecork:"In case people have forgotten their elementary studies on photosynthesis tree "eat" CO2 and produce O2..so it would seem elementary to plant a tree!"

That is why the burning of wood is called *carbon neutral.* Nothing to do with politics, actually. "

diplomat: Do you live under a rock? The carbon tax has absolutely everything to do with politics! We taxpayers are merely the pawns in a political game. Tell me which planet you live on....I would be interested to visit there some time. Sounds blissful and a place where one can escape from reality! Do you offer time shares?

"tinyapplecork"

Good on you, that is what I was trying to say!!

tinyapplecork: "Do you live under a rock?"

More attempted insults! YOU don't read very well or you don't understand what you are reading!!!

I said: "That is why the burning of wood is called *carbon neutral.*" It is a chemical process called combustion which has been happening since before politics or politicians where invented by mankind!!!

You are hysterical! Snap out of it if you can. I did not say carbon *tax,* I said carbon *neutral!*

Can you understand that? I doubt it.

Hey! I think everyone is entitled to their own opinions no matter how stupid they are. Doncha know?

An objective look -

1. 100,000 hectares of forests not yet harvested by humans - how much CO2 is put into the atmosphere on an annual basis?

2. 100,000 hectares of forests that are harvested on a steady state basis for an 80 year rotation - so about 1,200 hectares per year - how much CO2 goes into the air based on harvesting/ transportation/ manufacturing equipment + burning of waste in beehive burners or co-gen plants + consideration of sequestering CO2 used in construction related products, burning of construction "garbage" or dumping in a landfill.

3. 100,000 hectares of forests that are harvested on a steady state basis for an 80 year rotation - how much CO2 goes into the air based on harvesting/ transportation/ manufacturing equipment + burning of waste in + burning of product if the product is biomass such as pellets? Then figure out how the paper and construction materials previously made from wood are going to be replaced and how much, if anything, CO2 those processes will be produce and add that to the total.

4. 100,000 hectares of forests that are harvested on a steady state basis for a 20 year rotation - how much CO2 goes into the air based on harvesting/ transportation/ manufacturing equipment + burning of waste in + burning of product if the product is biomass such as pellets? Then figure out how the paper and construction materials previously made from wood are going to be replaced and how much, if anything, CO2 those processes will be produce and add that to the total.

Show me the scientific studies for all 4 and show that the carbon dioxide produced varies by very little and I will agree it is carbon neutral to burn biomass from forests. My hypothesis is that it is not carbon neutral. In fact, the same will end up happening to the traditional forest products as is happening to biofuels being created through agriculture – the cost of construction materials and paper products will increase.

http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/abc/home/contentposting.aspx?isfa=1&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V3&showbyline=True&newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20080704%2fbiofuels_report_080704

One cannot simply start a massive shifting of feedstock from a current use whose demand has not diminished to a completely different use with the expectation that the traditional marketplace economics will not be shifted as well. So, there is considerably more than CO2 at play.

The government grants and justification for the planned biomass (wood) burning power plant for the downtown are based on the concept that its CO2 emissions would be green house gases of a special kind - carbon neutral (whereas the present burning of oil and natural gas to heat the buildings is not).

Of course, there won't be a 100% cancelling out of the emitted carbon over time because, as you pointed out, there are activities such as harvesting and transportation that also produce carbon emissions. Still, the expression carbon neutral is used, probably for lack of a better more descriptive term.

In my opinion it is is a much deeper problem that people are not seeing, the same as they are not seeing the effects of the push on using agricultural lands for raising biomass for industrial energy rather than biomass for human energy.

I have mentioned the problem as I see it on here before. If we were to replace the units of energy produced by fossil fuels by biomass units one for one, then that would be reasonalbe for a start. If we were to replace the units of energy produced by combustion with units of energy produced by solar, wind, geothermal, etc. etc. that would, in my mind, be the best of all.

I think that what, in fact, is going to happen is that we will simply continue to be combustion based energy gluttons. The move to biomass for energy will slow down the switch to alternative fuels. It will increase the cost of materials which have traditionally been produced by biomass feedstock and we will continue to use fossil fuels at an ever increasing level until a plateau of capacity has been reached.

I consider the term "carbon neutral" to fall in with other terms used to put postive spins on something or, maybe more appropriately, disuade people to think about it a bit more deeply. It is a euphemism of sort.

I consider the term "smart growth" to be another one to likely fall into that category.