The Environment

[blueblood]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/...50329132436.htm

These studies are repeated over and over again in the last few years.

link

there are piles and piles of links, and this is as current as the one you gave. We can waste bandwidth and throw links at each other till hell freezes over. This is where simple logic comes in, and I've demonstrated that time and again.

Once gain I'm going to put these simple two questions at you and don't dodge around them by throwing an ethanol link at me.

So you would rather pay to have someone on welfare than working at an ethanol plant being paid by a private company???

You would rather have your tax dollars go to china and india than boosting our economy and helping out the environment the little bit it does???

[jdobbin]

Once gain I'm going to put these simple two questions at you and don't dodge around them by throwing an ethanol link at me.

So you would rather pay to have someone on welfare than working at an ethanol plant being paid by a private company???

You would rather have your tax dollars go to china and india than boosting our economy and helping out the environment the little bit it does???

I'd rather not have my tax dollars going to either. I'd very much like to reduce emissions in Canada with a policy that actually takes place in Canada and does the job is says it will.

It is why I have advocated for thermal energy, I am not resistant to nuclear energy (especially for a province like Alberta where it will make a huge difference), I for a much improved new building standard that gets the country to build zero emissions structures. I am for a hard target on mileage in vehicles. I am not for a feebate for new cars. I'd rather pay to get old cars off the road. I am not in favour of food for fuel. I am not very supportive of basing an entire emissions policy on emissions trading.

I don't want farmers trying to turn their entire crop into fuel. I don't want an emission policy based solely on carbon trading outside of Canada.

[jdobbin]

Latest report on how the burning of bio-fuels could be worse than coal and oil.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/jan...ed=networkfront

Using biofuels made from corn, sugar cane and soy could have a greater environmental impact than burning fossil fuels, according to experts. Although the fuels themselves emit fewer greenhouse gases, they all have higher costs in terms of biodiversity loss and destruction of farmland.

The problems of climate change and the rising cost of oil have led to a race to develop environmentally-friendly biofuels, such as palm oil or ethanol derived from corn and sugar cane. The EU has proposed that 10% of all fuel used in transport should come from biofuels by 2020 and the emerging global market is expected to be worth billions of dollars a year.

But the new fuels have attracted controversy. "Regardless of how effective sugar cane is for producing ethanol, its benefits quickly diminish if carbon-rich tropical forests are being razed to make the sugar cane fields, thereby causing vast greenhouse-gas emission increases," Jörn Scharlemann and William Laurance, of the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama, write in Science today.

"Such comparisons become even more lopsided if the full environmental benefits of tropical forests - for example, for biodiversity conservation, hydrological functioning, and soil protection - are included."

Efforts to work out which crops are most environmentally friendly have, until now, focused only on the amount of greenhouse gases a fuel emits when it is burned. Scharlemann and Laurance highlighted a more comprehensive method, developed by Rainer Zah of the Empa Research Institute in Switzerland, that can take total environmental impacts - such as loss of forests and farmland and effects on biodiversity - into account.

In a study of 26 biofuels the Swiss method showed that 21 fuels reduced greenhouse-gas emissions by more than 30% compared with gasoline when burned. But almost half of the biofuels, a total of 12, had greater total environmental impacts than fossil fuels. These included economically-significant fuels such as US corn ethanol, Brazilian sugar cane ethanol and soy diesel, and Malaysian palm-oil diesel. Biofuels that fared best were those produced from waste products such as recycled cooking oil, as well as ethanol from grass or wood.

The policy in Canada is wrongheaded and could be doing more damage than simply using oil or gas.

Edited January 5, 2008 by jdobbin

[blueblood]

Latest report on how the burning of bio-fuels could be worse than coal and oil.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/jan...ed=networkfront

The policy in Canada is wrongheaded and could be doing more damage than simply using oil or gas.

What a load of BS. Rainforests are being hacked down regardless. If biofuels weren't eating them up, then the extremely profitable Brazilian cattle industry would. If the Brazilians want to knock off their rainforests that's their problem. In Canada, we're not going to be knocking down forests for fields because the forests are in undesirable growing land. That report is a cheap shot against agriculture, not biofuels. Read a western producer or a Manitoba Cooperator, demand for grain/oilseeds has been on a consistent rise worldwide, those forests were coming down biofuels or not.

Defending this report, would make one against agriculture, against reducing CO2 emissions, against employing people, and against improving and diversifying the economy, have fun campaigning on that.

Why are you against the Rural Western Canadian Economy? Under the Tory gov't the economy of the Prairies is taking off, why the heck would we send any Liberal MP's to Ottawa when we're doing great, but when the Liberals were in power, the rural economy was almost toast.

[jdobbin]

What a load of BS. Rainforests are being hacked down regardless. If biofuels weren't eating them up, then the extremely profitable Brazilian cattle industry would. If the Brazilians want to knock off their rainforests that's their problem. In Canada, we're not going to be knocking down forests for fields because the forests are in undesirable growing land. That report is a cheap shot against agriculture, not biofuels. Read a western producer or a Manitoba Cooperator, demand for grain/oilseeds has been on a consistent rise worldwide, those forests were coming down biofuels or not.

Defending this report, would make one against agriculture, against reducing CO2 emissions, against employing people, and against improving and diversifying the economy, have fun campaigning on that.

Why are you against the Rural Western Canadian Economy? Under the Tory gov't the economy of the Prairies is taking off, why the heck would we send any Liberal MP's to Ottawa when we're doing great, but when the Liberals were in power, the rural economy was almost toast.

I have shown over and over again with reports that that ethanol eats up more energy than it produces,. It is increasing emissions despite the fact that burns cleaner. Without the subsidy and protectionism the farmer are getting, ethanol would not be produced.

Why would city people vote for Tory MPs who are supporting ethanol which defies environmental sense? Why would they support a policy that turns food into fuel?

Farm support should not be subsides related to growing. It should be related to paying for taking land out of service so that the rest of the crop increases value. This is good for farmers, good for the environment and good policy.

Edited January 6, 2008 by jdobbin

[Topaz]

I have shown over and over again with reports that that ethanol eats up more energy than it produces,. It is increasing emissions despite the fact that burns cleaner. Without the subsidy and protectionism the farmer are getting, ethanol would not be produced.

Why would city people vote for Tory MPs who won't are supporting ethanol which defies environmental sense? Why would they support a policy that turns food into fuel?

Farm support should not be subsides related to growing. It should be related to paying for taking land out of service so that the rest of the crop increases value. This is good for farmers, good for the environment and good policy.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what the US does for its farmers when the prices are too low?? No one grows anything and the drives the prices up??

[jdobbin]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what the US does for its farmers when the prices are too low?? No one grows anything and the drives the prices up??

You don't take all of the land out of production. You take some of it out that is either uneconomical or that should be taken out of rotation to sit fallow for a grow year.

[geoffrey]

Why would city people vote for Tory MPs who won't are supporting ethanol which defies environmental sense? Why would they support a policy that turns food into fuel?

Because David Suzuki loves ethanol! The ethanol green myth is supported by conservative types because it helps farmers. It's not any different than solar or wind or hybrids or any of the other 'green' myths.

You've only called bullshit on this one because it's backed by the CPC. If only Greenies spent as much time looking into all these other supposedly green technologies.

. It should be related to paying for taking land out of service so that the rest of the crop increases value. This is good for farmers, good for the environment and good policy.

Unreleated but farm subsidies in general are wasteful for the vast majority of Canadians. Let a few farmers produce things viably. If we need to pay people to stop farming, we obviously have too many farmers.

Let the market deal with the farmers. The government may have a place with green technology, but it's not in hybrids, biodiesel or ethanol.

[jdobbin]

Because David Suzuki loves ethanol! The ethanol green myth is supported by conservative types because it helps farmers. It's not any different than solar or wind or hybrids or any of the other 'green' myths.

You've only called bullshit on this one because it's backed by the CPC. If only Greenies spent as much time looking into all these other supposedly green technologies.

Unreleated but farm subsidies in general are wasteful for the vast majority of Canadians. Let a few farmers produce things viably. If we need to pay people to stop farming, we obviously have too many farmers.

Let the market deal with the farmers. The government may have a place with green technology, but it's not in hybrids, biodiesel or ethanol.

Actually, ethanol is backed by the Liberals as well. The Liberals said they would surpass the Conservative efforts in this and I totally disagree. So your claim is totally bogus that I am against it because it is a Tory policy. It is bad environmental policy.

As far as I know, wind and solar don't use up more energy than they produce. Do you have evidence of that? I do know that they are subsidized. However, once they are in place, they seem to function well as alternative energy sources.

The last I heard late in 2007 was that people like Suzuki were re-evaluating the ethanol based on the last several reports about it using up more energy than it produces and therefore being responsible for more emissions.

It is the same about hybrids. The cost of producing the batteries as they are shipped all across the planet in production takes up more energy than it saves according to several reports. I am against subsidizing new car purchases. I'd rather money be spent in taking old polluters off the road.

I see the payment to farmers not to farm and payment for them to be stewards of the land. It is working quite well in Europe. It is better than subsidizing the growing of food for fuel or the market in general.

[blueblood]

Because David Suzuki loves ethanol! The ethanol green myth is supported by conservative types because it helps farmers. It's not any different than solar or wind or hybrids or any of the other 'green' myths.

You've only called bullshit on this one because it's backed by the CPC. If only Greenies spent as much time looking into all these other supposedly green technologies.

Unreleated but farm subsidies in general are wasteful for the vast majority of Canadians. Let a few farmers produce things viably. If we need to pay people to stop farming, we obviously have too many farmers.

Let the market deal with the farmers. The government may have a place with green technology, but it's not in hybrids, biodiesel or ethanol.

Well it can be a subsidy in one point of view or a tax break in another. The Alberta oil industry got itself together by cutting taxes, some here would call that a subsidy, now look at Alberta, it's one of the richest areas in the world, and is a main reason why Canada is doing so well. Why can't we have those tax breaks to get the biofuel industry going too and improve the economy of western canada even more so. It's not like the government is writing out welfare cheques and not getting any money back. Everybody in Canada wins with this program. Cleaner skies, (not much cleaner but better than nothing), a much improved economy, more wealth, more jobs, more dollars in the governments pocket due to more tax revenue.

I'm not getting any government cheques. All I'm getting is higher grain prices, which means I have more money to spend. Timmy has a job building plants, Bob has a job running them. Whatshisname in Africa doesn't have to worry about rich countries flooding his country with subsidized grain he can't compete with and can now grow his own and make a living at it.

The fact that ethanol is bad for the environment is fallacy and I have shown that time and time again.

What if we had this attitude with the Alberta oilfields, "why use our taxdollars to get this oil, when we could get it from elsewhere for much cheaper?"

[jdobbin]

The fact that ethanol is bad for the environment is fallacy and I have shown that time and time again.

And shown time and time again that this is disputed.

[jdobbin]

Thought this was supposed to be a cold winter because of the ocean current.

We had rain in Manitoba on Saturday.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Record-setting warm temperatures in the double digits in southern Ontario have prompted warnings to stay away from thin ice and moving water.

On Lake Simcoe north of Toronto, authorities are searching for a 60-year-old man who was last seen going ice fishing on the popular lake.

They are using an airboat and infrared technology to look for the individual. The search is being hampered by thick fog.

Ice thickness on the lake ranges from 7.5 to 15 centimetres, with many areas of open water reported.

[Oleg Bach]

Thought this was supposed to be a cold winter because of the ocean current.

We had rain in Manitoba on Saturday.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

You don't have to pay for a better environment. Just take less. Taking a cut in pay....in pay that you don't deserve is not paying for anything. Stop facilitating the greedish sins in China and let half the workers stay home and relax and all will be well - and if the banks want to forclose on a mortage - well - tell them to F off - and forclose on the banks..besides - the banks can afford to lose a few billion without ill effect...global warming and climate destruction is not so hard to fix - we are so establish in the west that we can take a holiday for a few years and let the place heal it self..

.what's the big deal - the average person used to make 60 dollars a week - to we really need to have people making 3000 dollars a week which has become the average paycheck in some circles - while some work for less than minimum wage and actually create real product that you can eat...today it is spring in Toronto - which means that the earth will be to dry this year to grow food - will the Mexicans spare our sorry asses with aid when we run out of grub? Not likely - I say time to simply quite and stopping buying stuff from China - and if....a billionare in the west losses three quarters of his wealth so what - he can live on a million bucks...

[Topaz]

You don't have to pay for a better environment. Just take less. Taking a cut in pay....in pay that you don't deserve is not paying for anything. Stop facilitating the greedish sins in China and let half the workers stay home and relax and all will be well - and if the banks want to forclose on a mortage - well - tell them to F off - and forclose on the banks..besides - the banks can afford to lose a few billion without ill effect...global warming and climate destruction is not so hard to fix - we are so establish in the west that we can take a holiday for a few years and let the place heal it self..

.what's the big deal - the average person used to make 60 dollars a week - to we really need to have people making 3000 dollars a week which has become the average paycheck in some circles - while some work for less than minimum wage and actually create real product that you can eat...today it is spring in Toronto - which means that the earth will be to dry this year to grow food - will the Mexicans spare our sorry asses with aid when we run out of grub? Not likely - I say time to simply quite and stopping buying stuff from China - and if....a billionare in the west losses three quarters of his wealth so what - he can live on a million bucks...

Perhaps we shoud take that a little further and say to the companies that moved to India,China, Mexico etc. start manufacturing back here or will boycott your goods. North America produces better quality than those countries. I bet its foreign manufactures that are doing alot of the polluting in those countries than the country themselves.

[capricorn]

We had rain in Manitoba on Saturday.

It's foggy and 7C today in Ottawa. Our normal temp is -6C. Kinda scary.

[Wild Bill]

It's foggy and 7C today in Ottawa. Our normal temp is -6C. Kinda scary.

Why? I live in Ontario too and for 50 years I've witnessed the same January thaw. Sometimes it's been warmer than others and sometimes it's lasted for a few more days but it always works out to the same thing - a big tease to disappoint us when the cold returns and we have to wait another couple of months for warm weather!

What's so different about today?

[capricorn]

Why? I live in Ontario too and for 50 years I've witnessed the same January thaw.

Sorry Wild Bill, I forgot to turn sarcasm on and sarcasm off in my post. I love this January thaw and was looking forward to it. Temps will go back to normal in Ottawa in a few days. Yuck!

[jdobbin]

Why? I live in Ontario too and for 50 years I've witnessed the same January thaw. Sometimes it's been warmer than others and sometimes it's lasted for a few more days but it always works out to the same thing - a big tease to disappoint us when the cold returns and we have to wait another couple of months for warm weather!

What's so different about today?

Not too much other than the fact than Environment Canada was predicting a colder than usual winter due to ocean currents. It certainly was cold in December but January and February is when winter roads are solid enough to supply northern towns in Manitoba. It's starting to look like it might be another year of airlifts for those communities.

[blueblood]

Not too much other than the fact than Environment Canada was predicting a colder than usual winter due to ocean currents. It certainly was cold in December but January and February is when winter roads are solid enough to supply northern towns in Manitoba. It's starting to look like it might be another year of airlifts for those communities.

At my Ice fishing shack there is a foot and a half of ice. It would take some considerable melting to thaw that out. August was cold too.

[jdobbin]

At my Ice fishing shack there is a foot and a half of ice. It would take some considerable melting to thaw that out. August was cold too.

And yet in the last couple of weeks, we've had a number of trucks fall through the ice around here. The winter roads are still not in place over much of northern Manitoba. They need colder weather than what we have seen so far.

[blueblood]

And yet in the last couple of weeks, we've had a number of trucks fall through the ice around here. The winter roads are still not in place over much of northern Manitoba. They need colder weather than what we have seen so far.

Is it harder to freeze a river with a current than a dammed (literally) lake? I drove in the dirty W this year over a bridge when it was forty below and still saw open water.

It usually gets stupid cold for about 2-3 weeks later on. Late Jan and early Feb are ususally frigid.

[noahbody]

Arctic ice is thickening. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2008/...ce.html?ref=rss

Good God, we're all doomed!

[jdobbin]

Arctic ice is thickening. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2008/...ce.html?ref=rss

Good God, we're all doomed!

From your link: Still no way to tell if it will stem melting of the ice over the summer.

[noahbody]

From your link: Still no way to tell if it will stem melting of the ice over the summer.

Acutally, there is a way: wait for summer. Regardless, the arctic cooling shouldn't be ignored, no matter how inconvenient.

[jdobbin]

Acutally, there is a way: wait for summer. Regardless, the arctic cooling shouldn't be ignored, no matter how inconvenient.

Since it was long predicted that cold water currents would have an impact this year, it was hardly unexpected. Global warming deniers usually take every opportunity to step outside, announce it is cold and that global warming is a crock.

We'll see again in the summer if the winter ice is able to hold.