| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 47.1 | So long as they're not commie raindrops | BMT::RIZZO | Carol Rizzo | Wed Jan 27 1988 03:52 | 16 |
| Americans in the northern border states are acutely aware of the
acid rain problem as it affects us as well. In my opinion, Americans
are not informed as to how widespread the problem is or its economic
affect in the years to come.
Canada gets so little play in the US media, how do you expect Americans
to have any sense of it. Why more Americans can tell you who the
president of Nicuraga is, than can tell you who's the Prime Minister
of Canada. Its just not an iitem of importance.
So, if you want to impress upon American the sense of devastation,
the cost of a deadening ecology, then you had better hire some good
advertising and lobbying folks. (Micheal Deaver aside!)
Carol
|
| 47.2 | Cold for acid rain FREE trade. | 29633::HOE | from Colorado with love! | Thu Jan 28 1988 21:15 | 10 |
| The states sends us acid rain and we send the states the Arctic
Cold fronts! Great exchange, no?
I worked on several utilities systems that have stack monitors
stack polution. The monitors reports the readings to the EPA.
Unfortunately, the EPA has no enforcement authority; just
advisories to the poluting power plant; part of Ronnie Raygun's
deregulation thinking.
/cal hoe
|
| 47.3 | Can you say "dead-lakes" I knew you could... | TRCA03::KEHOE | | Fri Jan 29 1988 15:39 | 15 |
| RE .1:
The Canadian Government has been actively working towards an agreement
with the American Government for several years now. I don't think
bringing in any new blood would help any.
It seems to me that the American Government was able to stop their
acid rain problem caused by Mexico. (Must have given them a break
on the rates being charged on that huge loan.)
Basically I think Canada won't be able to strike a deal unless it
proves to be worth while to the American Gov't.
Ron.
|
| 47.4 | Trade Terrorism? | BMT::RIZZO | Carol Rizzo | Tue Feb 02 1988 03:55 | 10 |
| If you want the US to sit up and take notice, refuse to sell natural
resources. (of course that might hurt the Canadian economy.) The
US buys a great deal of pulp and paper, lumber, electricity, water
and yes, uranium. Of course the other thing Canada could do would
be to send Brian down here and not let him back into Canada until
the US begs and agrees to do something about the problem.
BTW, survey say that Vermont will have only 15% of their maple syrup
production by 1995 because of acid rain.
|
| 47.5 | Bucks or Ducks? | TRCA03::KEHOE | | Tue Feb 02 1988 15:20 | 11 |
| > Of course the other thing Canada could do would
> be to send Brian down here and not let him back into Canada until
> the US begs and agrees to do something about the problem.
I think most Canadians would put up with acid rain to get rid of Brian.
You are right, however, Canada could not afford to stop selling
resources to the U.S. and still hope to have a healthy economy.
So I guess it's either healthy forest or healthy bank account. I
know who wins 9 out of 10 times.....$
Ron.
|
| 47.6 | Get their attention! | OTOU01::BUCKLAND | I thought, therefore I was. | Tue Feb 02 1988 16:22 | 12 |
| < Note 47.4 by BMT::RIZZO "Carol Rizzo" >
-< Trade Terrorism? >-
> If you want the US to sit up and take notice, refuse to sell natural
> resources.
... or elect a left wing government!
Want to bet that the US would notice Canada then?
Bob
|
| 47.7 | What about the long term? | IPG::REEVE | Tim Reeve, REO-D/4-2, DTN: 830-6061 | Thu Feb 04 1988 10:05 | 10 |
| > So I guess it's either healthy forest or healthy bank account. I
> know who wins 9 out of 10 times.....$
The only problem is that in a few years time there won't be any
forest and therefore no bank account. How can that be healthy for
either side? A real problem is making any country accountable for
reactions at a distance. We all know that nuclear waste is bad for
us, so Chernobyl was a disaster. Factories have been with us a long
time, so their pollution must be okay, especially if it lands in
another country.
|