250 News - Your News, Your Views, Now

October 28, 2017 1:21 am

Climate Walk Organizer Encourages Clean Energy Use

Saturday, November 28, 2015 @ 4:10 AM

Prince George, B.C. – Northern residents are encouraged to participate in tomorrow’s climate action walk in Prince George.

It’s part of the Global Climate March and happens on the eve of the start of the Paris Climate Summit Monday.

“My purpose in organizing this is getting our government and citizens to listen to our climate scientists on the pressing issue at hand,” says co-organizer Jessy Rajan.

“I wanted Prince George to be part of this global network and this is everyone’s issue, not just Vancouver’s issue, or Paris, London or any of these bigger cities.”

She says the goal of the walk is to push leaders at every level of government to commit to 100% clean energy.

“I would also like to see our government come up with real agreements that we will adhere to. I mean in the past we’ve come out with plans and agreements that haven’t worked out to anything.”

Rajan says the walk starts at 1 p.m. tomorrow at 5th and George Street and notes everyone is invited to participate.

“Anyone who has children or grandchildren and wants to leave a world that’s livable for them I think should be out there because this concerns everybody.”


The following is the opening paragraph by Randy Pompetti on an article about this so-called “Climate Change”

My fellow Canadians, you are buying into a lie regarding our energy industry and the global environment. We are a mere 35 million people, just 0.5% of this planet’s 7.3 billion population. Our country covers roughly 10 million square kilometres of which probably 90% is realistically uninhabitable (explaining why over 80% of our population live in urban centres within 200 kms of the U.S. Border) We endure temperature extremes ranging from -40C or colder to 35C or warmer. Out of necessity we need to heat our homes for 6+ months the year. We face major transportation challenges simply because of the geography of our country. Yet, through all this we are responsible for less than 0.5% of the pollution generated globally. We ARE NOT the problem! If every one of us here in Canada chose to sacrifice ourselves for the betterment of mother earth and self terminated, the positive effect on the global environment would be…..drum roll please……zero!

Our Govt has us convinced the sky is falling in order to invent new taxes and fees to stop it from happening. I do not see how a 30% Carbon Tax makes my air any cleaner. Giving Christy & her cronies more money for a tank of gas doesn’t change anything.
They took the lead out our fuel 40 years ago & that was supposed to solve all our problems.

If Canada is responsible for 0.5% of the global pollution, then OUR positive effect of our efforts would not be “zero” (as stated by the author) but 0.5%!

We should not ask others to do something that we are unwilling to do!

The carbon tax is not 30% percent (as stated) but 30$ per ton of carbon emissions!

“They took the lead out our fuel 40 years ago & that was supposed to solve all our problems.”

More misinformation! Nobody ever claimed that taking lead out of gasoline would solve “all our problems”! But it sure worked to keep poisonous lead out of the air and out of the bloodstream in our bodies!

That pretty well says it all, Hillbilly171. Except, perhaps, that in order to pay any new ‘save-the-environment’ type taxes, and continue to meet all the other payments on that current average $ 1.60 something in personal indebtedness to every $ 1.00 of disposable income we already have, and still live, we have to do MORE of all the same kind of things that we’re told are causing all this environmental damage!

Prince George:-“If Canada is responsible for 0.5% of the global pollution, then OUR positive effect of our efforts would not be “zero” (as stated by the author) but 0.5%!”
“More misinformation”. It would only be a fraction of 0.5%, because we could never achieve “zero” and still live. This whole businesses is primarily about finding a way to tax people MORE than we already are being taxed, and doing it in a manner that produces the least resistance.

Thank you Jessy . Don’t worry about the climate change deniers . They only seem numerous because they rail at maximum volume while screaming at the crowds . Nice pack of lies being repeated in the comment section already . Don’t forget to wear a particulate mask today . The air isn’t fit to breath in town . With the air being so bad in pg it’s amazing that the city still has oil burning busses . They come in electric , saving mega money per year for the cities that have switched . I guess PG is too conservative to conserve fresh air . Conservative by name but not by nature .

So, she wants the governments to only use 100% clean energy. I would be interested in her stance on Site C. What is your stance on Site C Jessy? Nothing cleaner than hydro.

And after you do your Climate Walk , book your Trip to Hawaii , it makes you feel good and warm!

Poor Jessy have you been taken in and I would correctly guess you have been coached not to examine any countering views. You have been indoctrinated.

Tell me the correct level for C02? Don’t forget plants love high levels that is how they evolved. Greenhouses have C02 levels over 1000 ppm, the plants love it. Before this rise in C02 the level was decreasing to the point were plants where close to stressing for lack of C02. What happens if plants die, most everything dies. Oh there is no science that can unequivocally point to the levels of C02 and distinguish between man made and natural.

We live off the grid and I can honestly say we are trying to make a difference. Although the Canadian governments want it to look like they are making an effort, I call BS. There is absolutely no incentive to purchase solar energy. But why would they because then who would use the natural gas and hydro electric? So until we catch up with other countries concerning sun and wind power, we truly are not doing our part in climate change. Just saying.

Jessy what is the worlds optimum temperature?

Did you know the world has been hotter, much hotter. In mans history there has been the Medieval warm period, Roman warm period and the Holocene warm period, hey we didn’t burn up, life flourished.

You talk of clean energy. Well costly very expensive wind and solar power requires copious amounts of conventional energy to mine, produce, transport erect and maintain. Tell where the clean part comes in.

Jessy are you okay with the slicing and dicing of birds, heck a wind farm can even get permits to kill eagles.

Livingonwater what are your costs compared to the grid? How much maintenance is involved as living off the grid is not benign. How much of your off the grid stuff was fossil fuel sourced?

Doing your part, well there is no reproducible verifiable science that shows how much mans c02 contribution affects climate if any at all. Heck scientists are still clueless on the natural side of climate.

Did you know if the world followed the BS at the Paris Party the models, that is right models as mans effect on climate is computer models, not real world unadjusted data. Anyhow the modeled effect would be only .017 degree, bet you didn’t know that. .017 degree, wow.

“Don’t worry about the climate change deniers .”

They are just a small minority! And they are entitled to express their opinions which are contrary to all the evidence. The vast majority of scientist globally have come to the conclusion that mankind’s contribution to the warming of our planet is so extreme that we simply can not continue to emit GHG in the quantities that we are accustomed to.

Nobody wants to put ANY restrictions on global population growth. An increase in total population means more industrial and commercial activity and increased use of fossil fuels. So what do we want?

BTW, Canada’s share of global carbon emissions is twice the 0.5 percent mentioned in the unscientific opinion of Pompetti, i.e. it is more like 1.0 percent. Also, nobody is saying that ZERO emissions is an achievable goal for any country! – The goal is a significant achievable global reduction.

Did you know that so called clean power, wind and solar require conventional back up for when the wind don’t blow and the sun don’t shine. here is one example in Ontario.

Wind is junk, unreliable energy, that needs to be backed up 100% by conventional fuel sources.

For instance on November 26th at 5am, wind was only producing 10 MW out of a total installed capacity of 2 825MW. That’s just above 0.3% of winds capability.
Meanwhile Ontario’s demand was 16 410MW of which wind was providing only about 0.06% of Ontario’s electricity.
To provide Ontario’s energy needs with wind at this capacity Ontario would have needed 3 090 550 wind turbines (assuming 1.5MW wind turbines)
Considering that it costs roughly $5 million to build a turbine that works out to a cost of
$15 452 750 000 000.
That’s 15.45 trillion dollars……….oh well it’s just money and it’s going to save the planet. (sarcasm off)

Wind turbines kill between 214,000 and 368,000 birds annually — a small fraction compared with the estimated 6.8 million fatalities from collisions with cell and radio towers and the 1.4 billion to 3.7 billion deaths from cats, according to the peer-reviewed study by two federal scientists and the environmental consulting firm West Inc.

“We estimate that on an annual basis, less than 0.1% … of songbird and other small passerine species populations in North America perish from collisions with turbines,” says lead author Wallace Erickson of Wyoming-based West.

For those who don’t have an envelope nearby to do the math, that’s about 10,000x more deaths from just house cats than from wind turbines.

And that’s not even looking at some of the other biggest bird killers out there: building and vehicles. That’s probably millions, if not hundreds of millions or billions, of other birds right there. In the grand scheme of things, wind turbines are probably lost in the margin of error.

So its okay to kill birds including rare raptors for the common good then. How pathetic of a countering argument.

How is your make believe solar system doing?

“Don’t worry about the climate change deniers .” so PG you are denying that there was climate change before mann?

Please tell me the optimum level of C02? Please tell me the temperature level. Don’t forget temperatures can vary 100 F in some areas in a 24 hour period and people thrive there.

Did you miss the part where I stated if all agreements at the Paris party are followed “models” only show an effect of about .017 degree c.

Albertas energy costs are going to skyrocket, compounding their financial situation now. It amazes me how stupid that government is. Hey they will lower their c02 output but what is not mentioned is it will be exported to China and India because of lower energy costs. Say bye bye to manufacturing hello China.

Still no mention from UNBC that money bleeding school up the hill on how many they are sending to the Xmas shopping party in Paris. Follow the carbon trail to Paris.

OOPs my bad, should have been .17 not .017, the world is saved.

This article investigates the temperature reduction impact of major climate policy proposals implemented by 2030, using the standard MAGICC climate model. Even optimistically assuming that promised emission cuts are maintained throughout the century, the impacts are generally small.
•The impact of the US Clean Power Plan (USCPP) is a reduction in temperature rise by 0.013°C by 2100.
•The full US promise for the COP21 climate conference in Paris, its so-called Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) will reduce temperature rise by 0.031°C.
•The EU 20-20 policy has an impact of 0.026°C, the EU INDC 0.053°C, and China INDC 0.048°C.
•All climate policies by the US, China, the EU and the rest of the world, implemented from the early 2000s to 2030 and sustained through the century will likely reduce global temperature rise about 0.17°C in 2100.

These impact estimates are robust to different calibrations of climate sensitivity, carbon cycling and different climate scenarios. Current climate policy promises will do little to stabilize the climate and their impact will be undetectable for many decades.


Got an issue with my posts, counter them with facts.

from Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency
Joint Research Centre European Commission

trends in global co2 emissions 2013 report
billion tonnes of CO2

The first figure is 1990, second is 1999, third is 2012 and the last figure is the change over the 23 years

1990 1999 2012 increase
total 22.70 24.80 34.50 51.98%

china cement 0.09 0.24 0.89 888.89%
china 2.51 3.57 9.86 292.83%
india 0.66 1.03 1.97 198.48%
south korea 0.25 0.42 0.64 156.00%
international transport 0.66 0.82 1.06 60.61%
canada 0.45 0.53 0.56 24.44%
japan 1.16 1.26 1.32 13.79%
usa 4.99 5.69 5.19 4.01%
france 0.39 0.41 0.37 -5.13%
eu15 – original 3.33 3.29 3.00 -9.91%
uk 0.59 0.54 0.49 -16.95%
germany 1.02 0.87 0.81 -20.59%
eu12 – new 1.00 0.71 0.74 -26.00%
russia 2.44 1.62 1.77 -27.46%

It is an indicator of where the “industrial” and “urbanization” revolution is still taking place and where those countries which have led the way in that are switching to knowledge based economies.

Of course, people like socredible are still living in the industrialization revolution state of mind. :-).

Seamutt > Let me just take one of the several similar statements:

“The impact of the US Clean Power Plan (USCPP) is a REDUCTION IN TEMPERTURE RISE by 0.013°C by 2100.”

It does not state what the temperature rise is projected to be. It does not say what the temperature rise is caused by, whether natural or man made.

It does, however tell us that the author believes that the activities of humans impacts the temperature rise of the planet.

Thank you for confirming that. … :-)

Seamutt, do not imply that I am denying the events of Ice Ages and the serious consequences of climate change on plant and animal life. Many species were wiped out, as you know! So unless you want mankind to join the long list of extinct species due to disease and starvation you better start listening to the global eminent scientists who received their education at the most renowned universities of the world! Do you believe that all these have fallen for a conspiracy of some sort? How would their profession benefit from it?

PG so you bow to authority without question. For over thirty years now CAGW was supposed to result in some dire consequence but not one prophesy has come true. Can you name me one, just one dire prediction that has come true? Denier is a rude word. Sceptics do not deny warming, the earth has been warming since the little ice age and still has not warmed up to what it was before the LIA. Sceptics just question mans involvement, how much, how little if any at all. What is wrong with that. You use the term climate change as if only man is involved.

Scientists for over thirty years generally discounted the theory of plate tectonics, castigating the scientist who brought forward the theory.

Gore is making millions promoting the scam, heck he is involved with carbon trading companies. Saving the world for a fee.

About these scientist you seem to hold in high regard, are they some kind of special high moral human. Heck no, most suffer greed and illusions of grandeur and make a living off the taxpayers purse. They got a good ride going and intend to stay on that horse.

This climate thing is about politics, money and power, there is no science involved.

gopg2015 that figure comes from a model and not facts, no confirmation. If true you are therefore happy hundreds of billions if not trillions being spent for .013 degrees. Not counting the rising cost of energy read heating.

“Dont worry about the climate change deniers is because they are a small minority” would be because their voice is not being heard as the Main Stream media is controlled by the .01 Richest percent whose primary mission in life is corporate profit by any means possible. There have been many respectable scientists who have proven that climate change is a bunch of BS but their research never sees the light of day as MM wont publish the data and would prefer to use the fabrications of the corporate bought whores masquerading as global eminent scientists. Perhaps one should study the BC Carbon tax and you will soon see that this 20 percent plus tax hit to your natural gas bill does abdolutely nothing to reduce GHG and everything to do with funnelling to General Revenue and increasing this regressive tax to 30 percent will do what to improve the carbon footp



“trends in global co2 emissions 2013 report
billion tonnes of CO2

france 0.39 0.41 0.37 -5.13%
eu15 – original 3.33 3.29 3.00 -9.91%
uk 0.59 0.54 0.49 -16.95%
germany 1.02 0.87 0.81 -20.59%
eu12 – new 1.00 0.71 0.74 -26.00%
russia 2.44 1.62 1.77 -27.46%”

It works for these countries!
They have been duped, obviously.

It does not work for the we are
most familiar with:

“canada 0.45 0.53 0.56 +24.44%”

Over and out.

Seamut, you are hilarious. You remind me of the black knight. ‘It’s only flesh wound!’

Mudgeman it’s ” the Knights that say NI ” just plug that into YouTube . He reminds me more of basil fawlty shaking his fist at the flowers in the flower box . Thats what happens when one reads zerohedge . What about building number seven ?

Ha! ‘Come back and fight you coward!’

“Perhaps one should study the BC Carbon tax and you will soon see that this 20 percent plus tax hit to your natural gas bill does abdolutely nothing to reduce GHG”

It has caused stupid people like me to get a 97% energy efficient furnace last year, thus keeping my house heated to the same level as previously with about 30% less natural gas.

Problem is, the “delivery charge” is now the culprit. I am paying a lease fee to the City since they bought the Terasen gas network and charging an arm and a leg to us. :-(

Totally missed the point in that the carbon tax tax, enviro fees,appliance fees, environmental fees are all made up to generate revenue check the receipt on your high efficiency furnace and see the levys charged for something the goverment does nothing to alleviate. The carbon tax quite simply is a fraud

You call it a revenue generator, I call it an incentive to find ways to use less energy that is carbon based.

Of course the government receives money through that. It means that they can either provide us with more services, or they can not raise our other taxes as much.

Do you find a carbon tax on your hydro bill. I have none on mine.

I could switch to electric heat, however that is still far too expensive for now. Perhaps in the future they will drop the cost of electricity so that people will switch to electric furnaces or radiant heat.

Maybe you are old enough to remember: “Certs is a breath mint. No, Certs is a candy mint.”

Whatever floats you boat, proudtobepg.

I like yourself purchase items that use less energy, that is just basic economics 101 what I refuse to believe is that I need added goverment intervention to perpetuate a lie that an added fee with a warm fuzzy name will makes me feel that I am making a difference.The warm fuzzy feeling that comes on my hydro bill is called a rate rider. I find it disingenuous that 20,000 World Leaders,officials, green activists and hangers on will converge on Paris mostly on the tax payers dime.What kind of carbon footprint will this leave? Surely the technology of today can leave a virtual zero footprint but alas the lie must perpetuate. .

mudgeman, come on man, facts, show me the facts. What you got none?

gopg2015 whats wrong with carbon based energy? So you can afford a new furnace, good on you. What about the people who can’t. Whats the pay back on that furnace? What about our rising energy costs due to the added taxes, the high cost of inefficient wind and solar. Look at Germany, Denmark, England, Scotland, Spain. high energy costs forcing high energy businesses to shut down and leave. What about those that cannot afford the rise in costs and go with no heat or reduced heat which bring on health concerns. But you can afford a new furnace, yippee for you.


here is a good one for Jessie to read, just add Canada


wonder how many people will ride to the walk in their fossil fuel burning cars wearing their petroleum sourced cloths. Sure no one will be wearing fur as Peta will get ya and hunting, skinning is so yucky.

Seamutt, I am on the same page as you on most of what you say, except this:
“So its okay to kill birds including rare raptors for the common good then. How pathetic of a countering argument.”
Since you would obviously hold the same stance when it comes to killing marine life and sea birds because of oil tanker spills.
In other words, you obviously feel its alright to endanger and kill sea going wildlife in order for tankers to ply our oceans.
But as far as global warming is concerned, I really don’t know what the big deal is. So we get a longer summer and shorter winters up here. If someone wants an ocean view then they should maybe raise and build thier house on stilts because nothing we do is going to stop the planet warming. And besides, the difference isn’t going to happen overnight. We are talking multiple decades and centuries before any major geography changes occur.

When it comes to global warming, er climate change, you don’t have to look very far to find an expert! And for every expert on one side of the fence, there seems to be another expert on the opposite side of the fence!

Rather than take a fanatical position on one side or the other, I chose instead to be responsible in my energy usage! Gotta do my part is what I figure! So, this past Fall, I washed and waxed my gas guzzling work truck, polished it up real good using the best polish that I could find! Far more aerodynamic now, so slippery that it just flies down the highway, what with the reduced drag and all!

I figure that my fuel mileage increased by 0.017948776430133%!

Just doing my part! You’re welcome!

Seamutt, want to borrow some of my wax? No sense me being the only one with the warm fuzzy feeling that comes from doing my part! ;-)

Comments for this article are closed.