If it aint broke, don't fix it!

Canada Signs on to Rival Emissions Pact

The UN created the Kyoto protocol with intentions on fixing the world that humanity has somehow managed to screw up. Canada signed this protocol along with 168 other countries and government groups, and all we had to do was cut down on greenhouse gas emissions by 6%. This isn’t the most difficult thing in the world, yet somehow we were still unable to accomplish this. While the protocol has the support of many Canadians, there are also those who don't support it. Stephan Harper is one of those who do not support the protocol, as some fear this protocol would affect our competition with the states regarding trade. As a result, instead of sticking with the protocol, Harper decided it would be best to set his eyes on a new idea, the Asia-Pacific partnership. Instead of aiming at reducing gas emissions by 6%, Harper wants to try for 60%. If Canada cannot achieve the reduction of 6%, what makes Harper think we can accomplish 60%? Harper suggests in the article that "there is an emerging consensus on the need for a new, effective and flexible climate change framework, one that commits all the world's major emitters to real targets and concrete action against global greenhouse-gas emissions", and he has a point, but if all the world needed was a climate change framework, Kyoto protocol would have us covered. It is my opinion that Harper is using this new partnership to avoid facing the fact that we were unable to comply with Kyoto’s regulations, and to once again follow in the footsteps of the United States.

"The Annex I countries' share of CO2 emissions in 1990. To come into force, the Kyoto protocol must have been ratified by so many countries as to account for 55 per cent of the emissions. Since the US (and Australia) do not intend to ratify, Russia must do so to make up the difference."

http://www.acidrain.org/pages/publications/factsheet/factsheet12.htm

HPV? No thanks.

While the article "Should your daughter get the HPV vaccine?" raised many valid points regarding the controversial issue of a vaccine protecting from this common STD, but the father of two John Sexton had it right when he said ‘Hey, this is a different age'. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 47% of grade 9-12 students have reported having had sexual intercourse. Even with more then half of high school students remaining abstinent, the Kaiser Family Foundation approximates that four million teenagers per year are still contracting STDs. We have found a vaccine that could have potentially protected these young women from one of the most common STDs out there, so how can parents honestly disagree with this? It is understandable that some parents may be concerned with promiscuity becoming an issue among young women, but I can't see how this vaccine could possibly play a part in that. The argument is that "the vaccine might promote early sexual behaviour, or unsafe sex, by making teenagers feel they don't need to worry about infection or disease any more". This isn't accurate in my opinion, as there have already been many products exposed to young women preventing sexually transmitted diseases. The most common example would probably be birth control. Condoms are 99.9% effective, and they not only protect against STDs, but they protect against pregnancy as well. In my opinion, these would be far more of a concern for promiscuous behaviour then a vaccine, and you can find condoms at any of your local, family friendly drug stores. They are even advertised on TV as seen in the below video. If this is a socially accepted practice, I can't see why an effective, and potentially life saving vaccine can't be accepted also.



Kaiser Family Foundation
http://www.kff.org/youthhivstds/upload/U-S-Teen-Sexual-Activity-Fact-Sheet.pdf







TROJAN MAGNUM COMMERCIAL

http://youtube.com/watch?v=hSPZ828PbMg

And so it begins...

Forget hello world, lets try to be original people!
How about...
Test 1,2,3 and all that...
Blog one for communication studies is underway.
Yours Truly,
Patricia