Moonlight Graham Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 The two activists in particular, propose that climate change is hurting the world's poor more than the rich. Whether or not this is true, their solution would hurt the world's poor vs the rich FAR MORE than any climate change would. Not just far more, but several orders of magnitude more, due sheer human cost of limiting development, the only path these folks have from daily misery. Where do these 2 activists say specific things as you say they do above? I didn't see them say anything about that in the OP article or the newsclip. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitops Posted January 7, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) Where do these 2 activists say specific things as you say they do above? I didn't see them say anything about that in the OP article or the newsclip. They say precisely that in the CBC interview. Even when Evan tries to ask them about security, they go right into how climate change is affecting the poor, etc etc and he has to redirect them. Edited January 7, 2014 by hitops Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 Natural gas prices went into free-fall due to fracking, and oil has stabilized/dropped as well. This didn't happen from limited our consumption so others could have it cheaper, it happened from full-speed ahead development to unlock new sources of energy. This is the most effective method. apparently... you've bought into the 100+ years of shale gas availability claims. Apparently... you either haven't heard of the 'shale gas bubble' or you simply choose to discount it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 apparently... you've bought into the 100+ years of shale gas availability claims. Apparently... you either haven't heard of the 'shale gas bubble' or you simply choose to discount it. Plenty discount it. It's all up to a case of who do you believe. I remember in 2008 people saying we'd be paying through the roof for gasoline, never happened. Are we to believe that gas companies are investing all this money to bring a product to the market just so it becomes unsustainable in the future so they'll have to jack up the prices? Within 2-4 years? Here's an article that discusses it. http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2013/04/03/shale-oil-and-natural-gas-whose-bubble-is-really-about-to-burst/ I'm sure you can question the motives of the author. But I'm sure you can question the motives of the author of this site. shalebubble.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) It's quite funny how you keep suggesting the CBC is state controlled.Its part of a pathetic/ignorance shtick that is continually provided. It would be irritating if it werent so ignorant, but one comes to expect it. Edited January 7, 2014 by Guyser2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 I bet Harper wished the CBC was State-Controlled. It's State-Funded though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 Are we to believe that gas companies are investing all this money to bring a product to the market just so it becomes unsustainable in the future so they'll have to jack up the prices? oil companies are pulling the easy, less costly, 'low hanging fruit' at the moment... care to speak to the number of existing wells depleting, the depletion rate and the ever increasing forced need to drill new wells? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 Actually, these two should not have even been able to get into the building. That they were able to get in among the invitation only audience was a huge security failling. That they were then allowed to simply walk up onto the daise behind Harper is a stunning breech of security. Whoever planned out the security for this event should be reporting for his next duty assignment in Inuktitut very soon.Yes I agree and those agents should be dealt with. But look what happens when you walk on to a football field, you are lucky not to be in a body bag. But get within stabbing distance of the PM and you get walked off, should have been taken down HARD ,and maybe a stay in jail to think about it.It happend how many times to chretian?? I did not like the guy but he was the PM of the country and deseves the top line protection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 I bet Harper wished the CBC was State-Controlled. It's State-Funded though.Oh there is no doubt. Cue the dolt record in ...1....2...3.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) oil companies are pulling the easy, less costly, 'low hanging fruit' at the moment... care to speak to the number of existing wells depleting, the depletion rate and the ever increasing forced need to drill new wells? You could say that about any fossil fuels. Isn't it said about the Oil Sands all the time? If market conditions were too apply the low price of Natural gas speaks to the fact that demand certainly meets supply. Now if demand increases, which one would hope it does since gas is far cleaner than other fossil fuels than a price spike would be expected. But currently Natural gas is at historic lows due to the glut of supply, how is that a bad thing? Edited January 7, 2014 by Boges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carepov Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 Absolutely, lack of development is an elephant compared to the ant of 'rising waters' of whatever other sexy issue is worth reporting. Your concerns in bullet points actually have nothing to do with climate change, but more to do with over-consumption of resources (and presumably, their subsequent reduce supply). The concerns are not exactly the same but there is plenty of overlap. I believe it is unjust to future generations if we limit development and put ourselves at a future disadvantage by cutting fossil fuels. The only way to cut demand is to increase costs or limit prosperity. This to is unfair to future generations, as the young get most impacted by such measures (due to reduced economic activity and jobs). Not exactly. Cut demand by reducing waste (conservation) and switching energy sources to hydyo and geothermal where avaialble and nuclear - and some limitted use of wind/solar others. We should moderately increase costs of fossil fuels in the OECD (carbon tax) and help poorer countries develop sustainably. We develop with fossil fuels, there is no other way to do it today. When we develop we get richer, more productive and more innovative. That is how we will invent, develop and market newer, more efficient, less consuming energy methods. Willfully making ourselves poorer will just retard that process. Natural gas prices went into free-fall due to fracking, and oil has stabilized/dropped as well. This didn't happen from limited our consumption so others could have it cheaper, it happened from full-speed ahead development to unlock new sources of energy. This is the most effective method. Until fossil fuels run out, then what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) The concerns are not exactly the same but there is plenty of overlap. Not exactly. Cut demand by reducing waste (conservation) and switching energy sources to hydyo and geothermal where avaialble and nuclear - and some limitted use of wind/solar others. We should moderately increase costs of fossil fuels in the OECD (carbon tax) and help poorer countries develop sustainably. Until fossil fuels run out, then what? Demand will fall as new technologies are found. But the transition to a using no fossil fuels will take a long time, especially when development of renewable energy is completely subsidized by the state. Edited January 7, 2014 by Boges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 If hilarious that people want Fracking banned. It's a far cleaner fossil fuel than any available and it'll allow people to move away from crude oil and gasoline. uhhh... ever heard of methane? Fracking... the bridge to nowhere! and an update to that previous MLW post - Anthropogenic emissions of methane in the United States The spatial patterns of our emission fluxes and observed methane–propane correlations indicate that fossil fuel extraction and refining are major contributors (45 ± 13%) in the south-central United States. This result suggests that regional methane emissions due to fossil fuel extraction and processing could be 4.9 ± 2.6 times larger than in EDGAR, the most comprehensive global methane inventory. These results cast doubt on the US EPA’s recent decision to downscale its estimate of national natural gas emissions by 25–30%. Overall, we conclude that methane emissions associated with both the animal husbandry and fossil fuel industries have larger greenhouse gas impacts than indicated by existing inventories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 "How do we support those privileges? Politically with our systems, and economically with our development which is based on fossil fuel consumption. We are saying the same thing. " Not really. Our nominally democratic political system is not necessary to support development, nor is the cheap availaibility of fossil fuels. China is in the midst of an unprecendeted tsunami of devlopment and they have neither a democratic political system or access to cheap oil. Vietnam is another example. I was just in Panama, they are doing pretty well economically or at least a lot better than their neighbours in Central America. They don't have much to do with fossil fuel extraction or consumption, and only recently had any actual experience with democracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 Forgot to mention that the presence of these two protesters so close to the PM is a horrific breach of security. Heads should roll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 Burning natural gas is cleaner than oil or gasoline, and it emits half as much carbon dioxide, less than one-third the nitrogen oxides, and 1 percent as much sulfur oxides as coal combustion. But not all shale gas makes it to the fuel tank or power plant. The methane that escapes during the drilling process, and later as the fuel is shipped via pipelines, is a significant greenhouse gas. At least one scientist, Robert Howarth at Cornell University, has calculated that methane losses could be as high as 8 percent. Industry officials concede that they could be losing anywhere between 1 and 3 percent. Some of those leaks can be prevented by aggressively sealing condensers, pipelines and wellheads.Read more: Is Fracking Safe? The Top 10 Myths About Natural Gas Drilling - Popular Mechanics Follow us: @PopMech on Twitter | popularmechanics on Facebook Visit us at PopularMechanics.com It was found that the high profile cases where people can light their water on fire was due to improperly sealed wells. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 Burning natural gas is cleaner than oil or gasoline, and it emits half as much carbon dioxide, less than one-third the nitrogen oxides, and 1 percent as much sulfur oxides as coal combustion. But not all shale gas makes it to the fuel tank or power plant. The methane that escapes during the drilling process, and later as the fuel is shipped via pipelines, is a significant greenhouse gas. At least one scientist, Robert Howarth at Cornell University, has calculated that methane losses could be as high as 8 percent. Industry officials concede that they could be losing anywhere between 1 and 3 percent. Some of those leaks can be prevented by aggressively sealing condensers, pipelines and wellheads. is this your way of (finally) acknowledging/recognizing methane concerns? Following on your highlighted text, clearly... other than in some profiled cases (i.e, specific wells targeted by industry for "analysis"), I'm not aware of any industry wide initiatives to "plug the leaks..... the "some" of which... can be prevented". are you now prepared to rescind your earlier trumpeted claim concerning fracking emissions? . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 is this your way of (finally) acknowledging/recognizing methane concerns? Following on your highlighted text, clearly... other than in some profiled cases (i.e, specific wells targeted by industry for "analysis"), I'm not aware of any industry wide initiatives to "plug the leaks..... the "some" of which... can be prevented". are you now prepared to rescind your earlier trumpeted claim concerning fracking emissions? . Depends how the process is regulated. You seem to ignore the benefits of using Natural Gas. Why else would Ontario be lauded for replacing Coal-fire plants with Natural Gas plants? Here's an example of how a state is working to mitigate the methane emissions. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/18/us-colorado-fracking-emissions-idUSBRE9AH18520131118 The western state's Air Pollution Control Division proposed new regulations to reduce the release of methane during production and transport of natural gas in a deal with energy producers Anadarko Petroleum, Noble Energy, Encana Corp and the Environmental Defense Fund.The regulations, a first for a U.S. state according to environmentalists, would require operators to perform frequent checks for leaks using infrared cameras and other technologies. "This proposal represents a model for the nation," said Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense Fund. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 apparently... you've bought into the 100+ years of shale gas availability claims. Apparently... you either haven't heard of the 'shale gas bubble' or you simply choose to discount it. That type of utter nonsense needs to be dealt with on a constant basis so that the public is aware of such lies. Natural gas reserves are significant and immense, as is oil. In fact, 2013 was the largest oil boom in American history. The United States has not overtaken Saudi Arabia to become world's top oil producer. You're utter and complete nonsense is just like the peak oil garbage uttered decades ago. Enough already. http://business.financialpost.com/2013/10/16/us-oil-saudi-arabia/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 If market conditions were too apply the low price of Natural gas speaks to the fact that demand certainly meets supply. Now if demand increases, which one would hope it does since gas is far cleaner than other fossil fuels than a price spike would be expected. But currently Natural gas is at historic lows due to the glut of supply, how is that a bad thing? no - currently, U.S. natural gas pricing has risen from it's lowest levels associated with the early rise of fracking... meanwhile U.S. shale gas production is at its highest ever level. Rising prices in the U.S. reflect a domestic consumption gap... and low(er) exports. Strictly, from a market perspective, the projected impact on Canada's diminishing exports to the U.S. will cause accompanying price increases for natural gas in Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 That type of utter nonsense needs to be dealt with on a constant basis so that the public is aware of such lies. Natural gas reserves are significant and immense, as is oil. In fact, 2013 was the largest oil boom in American history. The United States has not overtaken Saudi Arabia to become world's top oil producer. You're utter and complete nonsense is just like the peak oil garbage uttered decades ago. Enough already. http://business.financialpost.com/2013/10/16/us-oil-saudi-arabia/ the discussion concerned shale gas/fracking! You do know the difference between shale gas and shale oil, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 You seem to ignore the benefits of using Natural Gas. Why else would Ontario be lauded for replacing Coal-fire plants with Natural Gas plants? you also appear to be quite confused! Does generation correlate directly with extraction? Here's an example of how a state is working to mitigate the methane emissions. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/18/us-colorado-fracking-emissions-idUSBRE9AH18520131118 proposed - just announced a month or so ago. First ever. One single U.S. state. First, see it accepted/implemented... see the deployed impact/results... if fruitful gains, then get it implemented regionally, nationally and globally. Get back to me then, hey! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 no - currently, U.S. natural gas pricing has risen from it's lowest levels associated with the early rise of fracking... meanwhile U.S. shale gas production is at its highest ever level. Rising prices in the U.S. reflect a domestic consumption gap... and low(er) exports. Strictly, from a market perspective, the projected impact on Canada's diminishing exports to the U.S. will cause accompanying price increases for natural gas in Canada. So you're saying the United States being self-relient is a bad thing then? If the price Canada pays is dependent on export and that market is drying up because of the Shale Boom, then why try and drill in New Brunswick and the Gaspe? Would there not be a domestic use for that gas? Or exporting to another market, not the US? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 the discussion concerned shale gas/fracking! You do know the difference between shale gas and shale oil, right? Yes I do. That's in abundance as well. Go spread your lies somewhere else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) you also appear to be quite confused! Does generation correlate directly with extraction? They aren't mutually exclusive are they? having a cleaner fuel would be a benefit would it not? Why else would Ontario be in the Natural Gas game? Completely supported by Al Gore. proposed - just announced a month or so ago. First ever. One single U.S. state. First, see it accepted/implemented... see the deployed impact/results... if fruitful gains, then get it implemented regionally, nationally and globally. Get back to me then, hey! Wouldn't imposing those regulations be better than banning the practice all together. Power has to be generated somehow. Edited January 7, 2014 by Boges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.