This just in: Huge cold countries use more energy -> more pollution

[Last Conformist]

Mexico is set to pass America in obesity ... and it's not because the Yanks are getting any thinner.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
It usually doesn't make sense to, say, fly from Calgary to Edmonton and back unless your company is paying for it.

You don't have coaches?

[Atahualpa]

No link to the study?

I think the problem with this study is that pollution is calculated per capita, while I think it should be per square kilometer. (assumption)
We do much better in Europe, we _have to_ do much better, because our population density is much higher. If we'd pollute the same (per capita) as canadians, we'd have serious problems.

Still, progress to reduce environmental burden is a good progress, so I hope Canada will better its record nonetheless.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
VJ, if you want a real demonstration of CNN competence, here it is:

Clarke's age probably counted against him, as did his pro-European views in an overwhelmingly neuroscientist party.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe...eut/index.html

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Atahualpa
No link to the study?

I think the problem with this study is that pollution is calculated per capita, while I think it should be per square kilometer. (assumption)

Because of course it's meaningful to count in millions of frozen uninhabited square kilometers.

[Richelieu]

Does the study take into account that it does get kinda cold every now and then over here?

[Niptium]

What who called Montréal «Girliemanville ?»

Yeah ! I know - Well Canada's pollution is all due to the Canadians oil digging cowboys in Alberta and the Ontarians. Nothing to do with Québec's hydroelectricity and wind energy ran economy !

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Richelieu
Does the study take into account that it does get kinda cold every now and then over here?

I reckon countries such as Sweden and Norway get cold too.

[Kuciwalker]

And I reckon you're completely ignoring the facts posted in this thread.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


That's what aeroplanes are for.

Gee, thanks for explaining to me that we should mass transport goods by airplanes instead of by truck or rail (which costs 10% as much)

[Jon Miller]

aeroplanes also produce far more pollution then cars

JM

[KrazyHorse]

As a means of hauling goods, yes

As a means of transporting people they come out close to even (favouring the airplane a little bit)

[Last Conformist]

Well, the obvious way to transport goods around in a country like Canada would seem to be by rail.

Then, we've seen much goods transport here go from train to lorry not because it's cheaper, but because lorries are more flexible. Just-in-time an all that.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Well, the obvious way to transport goods around in a country like Canada would seem to be by rail.

Then, we've seen much goods transport here go from train to lorry not because it's cheaper, but because lorries are more flexible. Just-in-time an all that.

Rail is very common and very popular, but you can't do everything by rail.

http://cn.akanda.com/cn/

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Well, the obvious way to transport goods around in a country like Canada would seem to be by rail.

Thanks for the tip. I'll make sure Sir John A. gets it right away.