Must use preview! To continue...
Given, as you say, that this weight is not all CO2, as the Carbon / Hydrogen ratio in the oil will be about 8 / 1, the approximate figure given in the article seems quite reasonable.
Presumably the article refers to weight of Carbon Dioxide, rather than the combusted Carbon. As you will know, but others may not, burning one ton of Carbon produces 3.62 tons of Carbon Dioxide. This is because every Carbon atom (atomic weight 12) has combined with two Oxygen atoms (atomic weight 16 x 2). In fact the reference to per capita CO2 pollution makes it clear that this is what was meant
Multiply your figure, with which I roughly agree, by 3.62 and you get about 830 million tons of CO2, even worse than suggested above.
Yes, change for the worse, the figures are up and the legacy of this council ensures that, without political massaging, they will rise further.
You call Anton's campaign a fraud, so what should we call the wilful exploitation and misrepresentation of such a serious moral issue as homelessness?
And as for this "angry old guy" and "whiny old grump" stuff, you're revealing some prejudices of your own.
You are right to emphasize that people can be homeless without being on the street, unfortunately the present council wobbles between the two definitions depending on the political point it wants to make, so does the mayor and so do you.
Probably 'street' homelessness has fallen, at least when counts are made when shelters are open, but homelessness has increased, official figures being 1,364 in 2008 rising to 1,715 in 2010. The claimed figure of 1,605 for 2011 may have had, as I understand, a slightly different methodology but is still a clear increase. The real figure, of course, is much larger and that in itself makes a possible one year drop statistically dubious.
I admire much of what you write but your political bias becomes very clear when you begin an article critcizing, with some justice, Anton for attacking "a social housing model the NPA set up" and end it by describing the same program as "a Vision homeless program that is working."
Just to correct Mr Robertson's figures on homelessness, with which he often seems to have a problem. The current number in Vancouver is probably actually about 3,700.
However using the lower official figures you get either an increase from 1,364 total in 2008 to 1,715 total in 2010 (using identical methodology) or 1,605 in 2011 using possibly slightly different methodology. Either way an increase during his tenure.
He may, of course, mean "street" homeless, the definition invented to avoid being held to account for previous promises, but of course that is not strictly relevant at the moment with the shelters not open. Now this isn't to say that keeping people off the streets in winter isn't important, just to suggest that crowing about success is just the unacceptable face of politics given the reality faced by so many.
"You can question how worthwhile democracy is ..."
"The City of Vancouver has a long history of protecting free speech and the right to protest peacefully."
The Falun Gong, protesting against oppression and abuse by the Communist Party of China, must wonder if there are two Gregor Robertsons.
"Cutting homelessness"? It's actually increased in Vancouver!
"Providing more affordable housing"? Look at the rubble where Little Mountain Co-op used to be!
"Protected parks"? Not many kids visiting the Children's Farmyard this weekend!
NPA "well funded"? Gregor and Vision broke all records for expenditure at the last election and will do so again!
"Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away." Oh, sorry, that was Elvis!
Anyone who wants to learn background facts about the case, as opposed to this superficial nonsense, should read some of the articles available on http://www.guardian.co.uk/ which might also provide Ms Uechi with a lesson in real journalism.
So it turns out the meeting was packed, that is in the old fashioned sense of being filled by supporters recruited by a city employee on the orders of Ms Reimer. An abuse of the democratic process and (again) of the convention of civil service impartiality. This is why people like me, supportive of many of the claimed if often unfulfilled policies of Vision, are so opposed to its continuing in power.
As for the water meters and other un-costed proposals. They have all the marks of elitist tokenism that will only actually impact poor and middle income people. Meanwhile the wealthy or those on well padded expense accounts or individuals and corporations receiving the "green" sinecures, and it's not hard to think of who these are in the current administration, are effectively untouched.
You're worried about the environment? Well how about getting to grips, after nearly three wasted years, with the "number one priority" of the environment in which the increased numbers of homeless and quasi homeless and 'street' homeless are living. How about giving that priority over tax subsidies to developers, however much they contribute to Vision's political funding?
I watched again all of Gregor Robertson's campaign statements made prior to the last election. He repeatedly makes promises regarding "homelessness" and not once that I have been able to find does he use the less comprehensive term "street homelessness". Here's one link, there are plenty more:
By attempting to rewrite history in this way you insult, in my opinion, the intelligence of the people who elected Vision.
"Homelessness" in the sense originally used by Robertson has increased since 2008 with no realistic prospect of being ended "by 2015". Since the closure of the shelters, by force and with arrests, the "street homelessness" figures must have returned to at least their previous level. You advise us to trust the numbers not the spin? Don't worry, I will!
I watched again all of Gregor Robertson's campaign statements made prior to the last election. He repeatedly makes promises regarding "homelessness" and not once that I have been able to find does he use the less comprehensive term "street homelessness". Here's one link, there are plenty more:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3hgdjmh–o&feature=related
By attempting to rewrite history in this way you insult, in my opinion, the intelligence of the people who elected Vision.
"Homelessness" in the sense originally used by Robertson has increased since 2008 with no realistic prospect of being ended "by 2015". Since the closure of the shelters, by force and with arrests, the "street homelessness" figures must have returned to at least their previous level. You advise us to trust the numbers not the spin? Don't worry, I will!