Your second and third paragraphs about the definition of a word is quite childish, as is your unsubstantiated first paragraph about Canada being an 'international embarrassment'. Nothing prevents people like you from donating all or any percentage of YOUR money to fund whatever cause you like. Your obvious plan is to take the money of others (most of who don’t agree with you) and use it to fund your own goals. You list problems in Forestry, Fishing, Healthcare, Buildings and Infrastructure, and Government Subsidies as being because of the fossil fuel industry in Canada. None of the above have been shown by any reputable scientists to be directly related to CO2 levels. Some people believe that taxes are owed to the Government even before profit is earned (Is this you?). This is not the view of mainstream economics and therefore the oil industry in Alberta does not get government subsidies. You could only put forward this myth if you believe that deferred or forgiven taxes are a subsidy. What do you call the huge direct subsidies paid to farmers each year? You decry my attributing political motives to this 'fossil' award and say it is unsubstantiated and then turn around and call my opinion 'backward'. Have you read the news about the leaked emails from the scientists at the 'Climactic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia' involved in making Climate Change conclusions available to the UN and the world? Steven Harper has no connection to the oil patch other than the fact that he was elected in a Calgary riding. I live just outside Calgary and I have no neighbors who make a living directly for the oil or gas industries but by all means please accuse all of us in Alberta of not caring about the environment or the rest of the planet. "The climate secretary, Ed Miliband, today accuses China, Sudan, Bolivia and other left wing Latin American countries of trying to hijack the UN climate summit and 'hold the world to ransom' to prevent a deal being reached." This excerpt was taken from a UK Guardian newspaper. Does this sound like Canada was the most 'obstructionist' in Copenhagen? Do Canadian's agree with you that Canada should not only kill it's own economy (by drastically curtailing it's output of CO2 right now) but pay developing countries billions so that they can clean up their act as well? The Liberals signed the Kyoto protocol in the mid 1990’s but can you tell me what policies they implemented over the next 10 years? The answer is none. Japan has a small amount of natural resources and a large population. Canada has the opposite. Can you imagine Canadians agreeing to distribute all the natural resources of Canada and Japan on a per capita basis? Of course this is ridiculous! Why then would the amount of CO2 that can be put into the atmosphere depend on a per capita basis? If the maximum sustainable CO2 for the world is X per year and let’s say that the area of Canada is 15% of the land mass of the world then why wouldn't Canada be entitled to put out 15% of the sustainable CO2 into the atmosphere each year? Why should the level of CO2 be per/capita and why would anyone think that CO2 emission levels in 1991 (the magic number for Kyoto) was the correct or fair amount for countries to limit their emissions to? Let’s have a reasoned argument and leave the religious talk and name calling to Sunday School!