Pipeline Politics - EU wants more North American Oil

[dre]

And I think that's what we're talking about.

No the exchange between you and I started with your reply to this...

Anyone who advocates policies to reduce CO2 should be living a life where they minimize their personal use

Its clearly not limited to those that advocate conservation. Its geared towards ANYONE that advocates any policy to reduce CO2 emissions, whether they want to build nuclear plants, cleaner coal gassification plants, combined cycle gas plants, etc etc etc.

[dre]

There are few viable and political acceptable non-CO2 emitting energy sources so if one is advocating for reduced CO2 emissions one IS advocating for reduced energy consumption.

Youre moving the goalposts... You said "CO2 reduction" in your post, not "non-CO2 emitting". There are a whole pile of viable technologies that can reduce CO2 without having. Replacing an old coal plant with a new NatGas plant cuts the plants emissions by more than 50%. Combined cycle plants can cut those numbers even more. And we are already building a near-zero emissions natgas plant and plan to build more

More importantly, all "solutions" to the CO2 problem require that the cost of energy be increased dramatically which will force the poor to reduce their energy consumption whether they want to or not.

Nope. Not necessarily.

[TimG]

Youre moving the goalposts... You said "CO2 reduction" in your post, not "non-CO2 emitting". There are a whole pile of viable technologies that can reduce CO2 without having.

You know that anyone who talks about "reducing" CO2 emissions means reducing to zero within the next 50 years or sooner. You might want to play semantics and argue that there are interim technologies that can reduce CO2 but they are not the end goal. So your attempt at semantics is silly and irrelevant.

Nope. Not necessarily.

If a technology is cheaper then there is no need for any government action because the free market will use it. Governments only get involved when they need to force the market to make more expensive choices. Therefore you are wrong. Edited December 6, 2014 by TimG

[dre]

You know that anyone who talks about "reducing" CO2 emissions means reducing to zero within the next 50 years or sooner. You might want to play semantics and argue that there are interim technologies that can reduce CO2 but they are not the end goal. So your attempt at semantics is silly and irrelevant.

No this is just patently false. Very very few people believe we will ever reduce CO2 emissions to zero. Not in 50 years, and not in 500 years.

Its not about semantics, its about you making false statements.

If a technology is cheaper then there is no need for any government action because the free market will use it. Governments only get involved when they need to force the market to make more expensive choices. Therefore you are wrong.

Do you even read what you are replying to before you post? I never said anything about government being involved. You said "all solutions require dramatic cost increases". Thats another patently false statement.

[Michael Hardner]

Its clearly not limited to those that advocate conservation. Its geared towards ANYONE that advocates any policy to reduce CO2 emissions, whether they want to build nuclear plants, cleaner coal gassification plants, combined cycle gas plants, etc etc etc.

Ok, point taken... the original discussion before you came on was about criticizing Suzuki and specifically Argus saying that he could be called out for driving, basically. That's as how I remember it anyway.

[eyeball]

Anyone who advocates policies to reduce CO2 should be living a life where they minimize their personal use. This does not mean they don't fly or drive or have a house but they should not be living a life of excess as so many of these bandwagon celebs do.

Well sure that makes moral and ethical sense when you're talking about their personal use, however you're conflating personal living with public advocacy you're comparing an apple with a grove of orange trees.

What if the number of people an advocate is able to reach and inform by jet is far greater than it would have been if they'd used a train or a bus and short-term excess saved energy in the long run?

[PIK]

So lets polluted by telling people not to pollute. Suzuki's trips have nothing to do with saving the environment, it is all about the money. That is why he and gore lie so much, they have made millions off of this.

[Michael Hardner]

So lets polluted by telling people not to pollute. Suzuki's trips have nothing to do with saving the environment, it is all about the money. That is why he and gore lie so much, they have made millions off of this.

It's irresponsible of you to say that when you don't know these people. At best it's a guess and a smear, no better than people who assume they know Harper and label him as 'evil'.

[PIK]

Micheal pay attention to what they do. Google Suzuki in austrailia and see what a fool he made himself out to be. Gore's movie is enough to see what these con artists are up to. The evidence is there.

[Michael Hardner]

Google Suzuki in austrailia and see what a fool he made himself out to be. Gore's movie is enough to see what these con artists are up to. The evidence is there.

They are both, in effect, advocates and showmen. I would not expect Suzuki to know the specifics of Climate Change research to that level. You are still saying that they're liars, in effect. I would not make an assertion like that of somebody I didn't know, and if I did I would retract it if it was pointed out.

That's called being personally responsible for one's statements.

[Moonbox]

Michael it's rhetoric. It's pretty clear what PIK is saying. He's saying they're not credible scientists and their hypocrisy is often galling, particularly in Mr. Gore's case, who I'm surprised has even an ounce of credibility left.

[Michael Hardner]

... particularly in Mr. Gore's case, who I'm surprised has even an ounce of credibility left.

But Gore is just a showman. If you count him as a scientist, that's your mistake.

[TimG]

But Gore is just a showman. If you count him as a scientist, that's your mistake.

No. When Gore talks he assumes the authority of scientists and uses that usurped authority to fend off critics. Therefore, it is reasonable to hold him to same standards that one holds scientists to. If you don't like it you should start by insisting that people like Gore should stop claiming to speak for scientists. Edited December 15, 2014 by TimG

[Moonbox]

But Gore is just a showman. If you count him as a scientist, that's your mistake.

Like TimG says, he's a figurehead of the movement. It's not that people are mistaking him for a scientist, it's that he goes around the world as a high-profile advocate attempting to scare people and influence their behavior, but at the same time he's profiting heavily off of his advocacy and not practicing what he's preaching. This is why he shouldn't be taken seriously, not because he's not a scientist. He never pretended to be.

[eyeball]

You could just as easily be describing Harper vis a vis the oil industry.

[Michael Hardner]

No. When Gore talks he assumes the authority of scientists and uses that usurped authority to fend off critics. Therefore, it is reasonable to hold him to same standards that one holds scientists to. If you don't like it you should start by insisting that people like Gore should stop claiming to speak for scientists.

I agree that you SHOULD hold him to that standard, as I do. But media people try to discount climate scientist based on Gore's errors, which is just effortless and wrong-headed. It would be like me throwing all of climate skepticism under the bus because of a few blogger crackpots.

This response goes to Moonbox too...

[TimG]

But media people try to discount climate scientist based on Gore's errors, which is just effortless and wrong-headed.

Gore provided the only information that many people have on the topic. How can people reasonably separate what Gore says from what scientists say - especially since no alarmist scientist challenges Gore on his claim that he speaks for scientists.

[Michael Hardner]

Gore provided the only information that many people have on the topic. How can people reasonably separate what Gore says from what scientists say - especially since no alarmist scientist challenges Gore on his claim that he speaks for scientists.

Here's Gore being called out for an apparent error by the Union of Concerned scientists....

http://blog.ucsusa.org/al-gore-educates-the-public-on-climate-science-but-shouldnt-overstate-findings-215

[jacee]

Two wins!

At the Onondaga Nation, joy and disbelief over state decision against fracking

http://www.syracuse.com/kirst/index.ssf/2014/12/at_the_onondaga_nation_joy_and_disbelief_over_state_decision_against_fracking.html

http://www.canadians.org/blog/win-transcanada-abandon-energy-east-pipeline-port-cacouna

Public pressure appears to have forced TransCanada to abandon its plans for an Energy East pipeline marine terminal at Cacouna, Quebec.

[overthere]

Public pressure appears to have forced TransCanada to abandon its plans for an Energy East pipeline marine terminal at Cacouna, Quebec.

Pheeeww, thats a relief. Now we can continue bringing tanker after tanker filled with crude up the St Lawrence to Montreal. Much better.

[PIK]

And you think this is good. We are cutting our own throats and for what. So china and everybody else can continue what they do as the main producers of GHG. While we at 1.48% has to gut it's economy to make people like you feel better?

[overthere]

^ are you talking to me?