This picture is riddled with symbolic power and domination of a transit system its no wonder there is no one inside that trolley. In fact, I would go as far as to say this image is analogous to Obama and his persuasive method of rendering everyone a slave to his every wishy washy word, yet, still have nothing really substantive to say about mass transit.

Look at this guy. He must be absoloutely stifling his power - drunken desire to do something terrible to his neighborhood minions. I'm overwhelmed with anxiety for them just looking at that complacent smile and orchestrated hand placement.

I don't really mind Obama, though. But in order to meet his (14%) target for cutting down greenhouse gas emissions, Americans would have to pay 7 bones per gallon for gas. In order for this goal to be met by 2020, the cost of driving would simply have to increase.

Makes sense though, right?

The transportation sector is responsible for 70% of the oil used in the United States.

Also seems pretty understandable.

Some of the smarty pants who are trying to deal with this sobering reality are talking about assuming an economy wide carbon dioxide tax starting at $30 a ton this year, and exploding to $60 in 2030. But tax credits dont address how often people drive.

What I propose they do is make public transit fucking ballin. The bus has to be the place to be, with minifridges, vibrating seats and people who wash your hands for you. I can't imagine my life without the ttc. It's simply a matter of getting used to things. We're animals - animals dont know they have it shitty until they have it good. So, if the government invested into giving their buses rims and crazy stereo systems, people would want to carpool and driving personal vehicles would be lame.

And plus, then the WHOLE WORLD could get drunk ALL THE TIME !

I'd also propose we all start calling the streetcar the tram because the tram is a way better word for it.

Kait Fowlie for President?

Deep ecology isn't an academic philosophy, nor is it institutionalized as an ideology. What happens in deep ecology is people coming together in direct actions, organized efforts to improve the ecosystem. It is a lifestyle, of sorts, a social movement.

There is no separation between the self and nature for proponents of deep ecology. The self is expanded into nature, and overcomes the narrow concerns of industrial life, devalues the particular, and emotional based attachments. Human life is one with the ecosphere. Deep ecology believes in equal rights of the human and the environment. We have the same right to flourish.

It makes sense then, that Arne Naess, the philosopher who coined this phrase, believed the most influential participants to be artists and writers, who express their insights not in academic tones, but through the arts. Unlike other anthropocentric (human intersted) views of the environment, this ethic embracing plants and animals as well as people is required for HARMONY! Such an ethic is effective if people actually believe in its validity, rather than just its usefulness - conservation strategies are implemented by people who love what they conserve. Lovers feel no need to hide their attitudes, they embrace their passions and wish to impart them to others. (Maybe this is really emo and girly, but I'm down, ok?)

Deep ecology is about questioning the fundamental beliefs of the impacts of human life on the earth, rather than considering the relationship simply as a branch of biology. Deep ecology is a more holistic view of the world. The parts of the ecosystem we consider to be separate function as a whole for the deep ecologist, who believes that all life forms have instrinsic value, and have a right to life that can't be quantified.

Akin to Arne Naess's deep ecology, Aldo Leopold believed humans to be "plain members of the biotic community" - (knocking us down to size a little) which is a general scheme I find pretty nifty. Leopold's idea of land ethic states that "a thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise". This supports deep ecology at its most fundamental level.

I'm a dude, your a dude, we're all dudes, some of us just trying not to destory everything in our path ... I don't care HOW emo it sounds, deep ecology starts with LOVE, LOVE, LOVE.

My kitchen is a metaphor for the world.

The number of mice outnumbers the people in my apartment. My room mates perpetually taunt each other about the rat king who inhabits our walls and lives off our filth. It’s not like we try to be unsanitary - we clean up, but the dishes always seem to accumulate regardless of the measures me take to reduce them. Sometimes I feel like it takes on a life of its own at times.

It seems to be a question of responsibility. “Those dishes aren’t mine, I’m not doing them” some room mates say. But the fact is, we all live here. It doesn’t matter whose dishes they are in the sink, they affect everyone, and if nothing is done about them then our apartment will continue to be filthy, attract mice and fruit flies, and smell rank.

I think the same can be said of the world at large.

Globally, temperatures are increasing rapidly and greenhouse gases are accumulating. Our human activities - primarily the burning of fossil fuels - is the main reason for this. But who exactly, is responsible? Who can we point a finger at? The U.S., whose frivolous consumptive habits and SUV driving have reached epic proportions? Or China, who depends on 75% of its total energy from coal? The list of possible offenders is infinite. But the truth is, there is no single culprit behind climate change.

The well known figures attempt to provide the hard facts. Developing countries like India, China and Brazil made up 22.2% of the global carbon emissions in 2004, and the rate is increasing as they develop. Canada, U.S., and Australia made up 24.5% of global emissions in 2004 – but these three industrialized countries comprise just 6% of the world’s population, which breaks down to about 21 tons of carbon dioxide per person. The aforementioned three developing countries make up 40% of the world’s population, which breaks down to 7 metric tons per person.

As industrialized nations are realizing the dangers of global warming, they are starting to make some changes. But the same standards are being imposed on developing countries, who face the same environmental challenges, but without the financial resources. How can we expect to force a required change on the countries that already suffer?

Impoverished countries don’t currently have any legal obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but their governments acknowledge that the need for sustainability exists. China, (the top polluter in the world by 2007,) is taking measures to clean up. It is predicted that by 2020, emissions will be 7% lower than they originally would be. Some remote villages that are off the grid are utilizing wind and solar power to provide electricity. Independence is key to sustainability. But China isn’t the sole cause of its own ecological demise. Countless goods for the Western world are manufactured here - clothing, plates and bowls, bookshelves and bed frames. The mass manufacturing of these items contributes enormously to their emissions.

The effects of climate change are felt most severely in these developing countries, where small islands could be swallowed by rising water, storms hit, and intense heat waves could destroy livelihoods. The carbon emissions of the rich will ruin the lives of the poor. The Western world has the influence and power to make changes that would have effects everywhere.

The Kyoto Protocol, in its goal to reach %15 reductions in global emissions, imparted the largest reductions to the biggest emitters. Political will and popular support also played a role. For the Protocol to become active, 55 countries had to ratify it, and those 55 had to be responsible for at least 55% of the world greenhouse gas emissions. As of 2009, 183 countries have ratified the protocol. Virtually every industrialized country except the U.S., and Australia are included in that number. The omission of the U.S. sends out the strong message that climate change isn’t being taken seriously by one of the most influential global powers.
During his presidency, American president George Bush argued that the Kyoto Protocol would hurt the economy, as business emissions would be limited and their competitors in developing nations wouldn’t be. Prioritizing economic prosperity over climate change is a dangerous precedence, and a dead end.

Similarly, current Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has refused to implement any aggressive cuts to pollution. He has spent $1.5 billion on renewable energy, but continues to subsidize the tar sands, a massive energy consuming oil enterprise in Fort McMurray, Alberta. This fact alone is enough to question his green intentions. Harpers Clean Air Act, an attempt to combat air pollution and greenhouse gases, focuses on reducing emissions relative to the size of the economy. The size of each economy makes no difference to the concentration of greenhouse gases in the environment. Harper has no immediate targets, and no legal obligation to reduce. The money he is spending on renewable energy is wasted – developing low carbon technology without cutting emissions is futile.

We need to reach a global agreement in order to coordinate efforts, create a unified target, and facilitate the transfer of knowledge and technology. It starts with the Western world, which sets an example for everyone. Right now, the global average is only %3.5 renewable energy. While no single renewable energy source can replace fossil fuels entirely, collectively, it is possible. For a secure and sustainable future though, humanity must rely on a range of energy sources.

Solar energy provides over 7500 times civilizations current demand. Some companies even tell us that it can compete with coal. A popular way to use this renewable energy involves panels usually placed on roofs, shingles, tiles, or glazing on windows. The main downside is the cost. Solar power is the most expensive form of renewable energy. The wider its use, however, the cheaper it becomes. Until this resource is made easily accessible, it will remain expensive.

We can’t wait around for higher authorities to make it easy to be green. Nor can we afford to waste time deciding who is responsible for the increasing temperatures. Individual action can be taken to reduce our personal carbon footprints. The example we set will have a resounding effect on those around, and the world at large. The problem of climate change belongs to everyone. It is everyone’s responsibility to reduce emissions. Just like the dishes in my 4 bedroom apartment, we all suffer from the collective filth and pointing fingers doesn’t solve the problem. If we don’t take action now, we’ll be pointing fingers at one another until it’s too late.