Are humans really responsible for climate change?

[GostHacked]

I will always say environmental toxicity is much more of an immediate concern compared to climate change. Reducing CO2 is not going to solve the issue on it's own, and is nothing more than a tax/cash grab by the government with implementing any kind of carbon tax.

[Guest]

9 hours ago, eyeball said:

/facepalm

Did you miss or ignore where I said burned?  The CO2 released from processing is peanuts compared to burning it. 

/facepalm

Did you miss or ignore where I said it would just come from somewhere else.  Sheesh, I thought we were past that bit.

9 hours ago, eyeball said:

Perhaps you also ignored where it was pointed out that there are no other Tar Sands in the world.  There's nothing dirtier than Fort Mac.  

As for regulation you also must be ignoring where I pointed out that the oil companies operating in the Tar Sands are under reporting how much they are emitting.

But we were talking about ecosystems.  You ommitted that from the quote. The contribution to AGW from the oil sands is negligible compared to the big emitters, and it's about to be reduced by the Regulator.  I disagree with you about the regulations.  If Alberta's are missing things, what do you think Russia's, Venezuela's and Saudi Arabia's are doing.

No, the facts are that Alberta's AGW contribution are a drop in the bucket, and the regulations under which hydrocarbons are extracted in Alberta are the strictest in the world.  Like I said, if you can get everyone to stop using them, fine, but until then, they might as well use ours.

9 hours ago, eyeball said:

You never seem have anything to argue with so maybe you just give up and resort to calling me retared like Oftenwrong.

Well I would never do that of course, but if you want to stop I don't care.  I gave you the facts in the above paragraph.

Edited May 27, 2019 by bcsapper

[eyeball]

10 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Well that is certainly not true...there are bitumen deposits (oil sands) in different wet grades in other places around the world, notably Russia and Venezuela.   Eastern Utah (USA) also has pilot projects for oil sands extraction.

Correct, my mistake.  I misread another article.  It's the largest deposit yet discovered and the scale of development certainly makes it stand alone.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

/facepalm

Did you miss or ignore where I said it would just come from somewhere else.  Sheesh, I thought we were past that bit.

Two wrongs and whataboutism don't make it right.  There are measures such as economic sanctions and boycotts that we can use (and that should be used against us) for getting past this bit.

 

Quote

But we were talking about ecosystems.  You ommitted that from the quote.

Excuse me?

   

Quote

The contribution to AGW from the oil sands is negligible compared to the big emitters, and it's about to be reduced by the Regulator. 

 

The articles I pointed to clearly say something else and you've ignored that I made a clear distinction emissions from processing and burning.

 

Quote

 

I disagree with you about the regulations.  If Alberta's are missing things, what do you think Russia's, Venezuela's and Saudi Arabia's are doing.

Well, they're either telling the truth or they're not and I don't see why I should have much faith in the government's veracity.  I guess its all just fake news and fake science to industry supporters.

 

Quote

No, the facts are that Alberta's AGW contribution are a drop in the bucket, and the regulations under which hydrocarbons are extracted in Alberta are the strictest in the world.  Like I said, if you can get everyone to stop using them, fine, but until then, they might as well use ours.

A processing drop in a bucket filled with emissions from burning, how many time do I have to repeat that difference?  If Alberta's regulations are the strictest in the world then there's probably zero hope of ever putting a dent in climate change.

 

Quote

 

Well I would never do that of course, but if you want to stop I don't care.  I gave you the facts in the above paragraph.

 

 Thanks but I don't see much in the way of factual evidence that Alberta's Tar Sands are safe or safer in any way shape or form other than just staying in the ground where they belong.

 

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, GostHacked said:

I will always say environmental toxicity is much more of an immediate concern compared to climate change. Reducing CO2 is not going to solve the issue on it's own, and is nothing more than a tax/cash grab by the government with implementing any kind of carbon tax.

Probably true.  I've often said the biggest eight-ball humanity is behind is its dishonest governance.  Fix that and virtually everything that confounds and bedevils us would change.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Two wrongs and whataboutism don't make it right.  There are measures such as economic sanctions and boycotts that we can use (and that should be used against us) for getting past this bit. 

Well, like I said, when you can get folk to stop using the stuff, we won't need to produce it. 

 

10 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Excuse me?

Really.  Read back.

 

10 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The articles I pointed to clearly say something else and you've ignored that I made a clear distinction emissions from processing and burning.

So did I.  Burning is irrelevant.  That guy in Vancouver isn't going to scrap his new Mustang just because you get the oil sands shut in.  As to emissions, it does seem (and I speak from experience) that emissions are under reported.  Your article talks about CO2, and I have personal experience of CH4 underreporting.  If you think it's only in Alberta, would you like to buy a bridge?  The fact remains, and it is a fact, that if hydrocarbons are extracted, Alberta is the most regulated place they can be extracted from.  If your plan is don't extract hydrocarbons, fine.  Find another way to keep warm, and get around, and manufacture stuff, etc, but if you are practical, not a fantasist, then get the necessary from the cleanest source.

 

17 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Well, they're either telling the truth or they're not and I don't see why I should have much faith in the government's veracity.  I guess its all just fake news and fake science to industry supporters.

Some are better than others' I agree.  Of the lot, I'll go with Alberta's

 

18 minutes ago, eyeball said:

A processing drop in a bucket filled with emissions from burning, how many time do I have to repeat that difference?  If Alberta's regulations are the strictest in the world then there's probably zero hope of ever putting a dent in climate change. 

Again, burning is going to happen, regardless of what happens to the oil sands.  As to your second sentence, without a stunning technological breakthrough, there is no probably about it.

[eyeball]

Just now, bcsapper said:

Really.  Read back.

I did and I'm afraid I just don't see what you're talking about so could you please point out where?

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I did and I'm afraid I just don't see what you're talking about so could you please point out where?

Sure, it was this post.

 

 

[eyeball]

 

5 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Sure, it was this post.

 

 

You seem to be really stuck on the difference in emissions between processing and burning but OTOH maybe you just want to ignore it.

 

12 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Burning is irrelevant.

Only if the people we sell it to burn it on the moon.  You seem to lack any concern for the fact that we share the same atmosphere with the people we want to sell Tar Sands oil to.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

 

You seem to be really stuck on the difference in emissions between processing and burning but OTOH maybe you just want to ignore it.

 

Only if the people we sell it to burn it on the moon.  You seem to lack any concern for the fact that we share the same atmosphere with the people we want to sell Tar Sands oil to.

First off, did you see my point about how we were talking about ecosystems at that point? 

As for the difference in emissions between processing and burning, we both know what it is.  We just differ on whether or not people are going to stop using hydrocarbons if they shut down the oil sands.

[eyeball]

6 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

First off, did you see my point about how we were talking about ecosystems at that point? 

I see you pointlessly trying to dig in your heels is all.

Quote

As for the difference in emissions between processing and burning, we both know what it is.  We just differ on whether or not people are going to stop using hydrocarbons if they shut down the oil sands.

It feels good for politicians and industry boosters to claim Canada only produces 0.15 % of global emissions when processing Tar Sands (notwithstanding all the apparently massive under-reporting that's been happening) because then they completely ignore the fact far far more will be released burning it. 

Of course people aren't going to stop using fossil fuels but why use the worst fuels possible when doing so?  A few jobs?  Meh.

Burn baby burn I guess.It is what it is.

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

I see you pointlessly trying to dig in your heels is all.

Sure, if you like.  It's not important.

 

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

It feels good for politicians and industry boosters to claim Canada only produces 0.15 % of global emissions when processing Tar Sands (notwithstanding all the apparently massive under-reporting that's been happening) because then they completely ignore the fact far far more will be released burning it. 

Of course people aren't going to stop using fossil fuels but why use the worst fuels possible when doing so?  A few jobs?  Meh.

Burn baby burn I guess.It is what it is.

Far far more than what?  This is where I lose your point.  If output from the oil sands ceased right now, what would be the net benefit in CO2 reduction if everyone using it simply got their fuel from somewhere else.

[ReeferMadness]

20 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I think that applies to pretty much everything.  Might as well rename it "human nature".

It is part of human nature.  Like any other flaw in human nature, humans with intelligence and self-awareness can recognize and compensate for it.

I see a lot of statements that indicate that people are quite unaware of this tendency.

[ReeferMadness]

30 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Far far more than what?  This is where I lose your point.  If output from the oil sands ceased right now, what would be the net benefit in CO2 reduction if everyone using it simply got their fuel from somewhere else.

Well, nobody suggested ceasing oil sands production right now but if it did, it would have a significant effect on CO2 reduction.  Prices would spike and people would use less oil.  It would take years to replace that production.

Meanwhile, with every spike and gyration in the price of gasoline, more and more people are opting out by buying electric vehicles. 

People whine incessantly about the price of gasoline and then run out and buy the biggest fuel waster they can find. The problem isn't that gasoline is to expensive; it's that it has been way too cheap for way too long.

[WestCanMan]

8 hours ago, GostHacked said:

I will always say environmental toxicity is much more of an immediate concern compared to climate change. Reducing CO2 is not going to solve the issue on it's own, and is nothing more than a tax/cash grab by the government with implementing any kind of carbon tax.

Agreed. In particular, we treat the ocean like a big garbage/sewage dump, we're overfishing, we're stripping too much marine life off the bottom when we drag nets, we kill too many whales and sharks....

I wonder how many more generations of people will think of the ocean as a place to swim, or will think of fish as safe to eat because of all tercury, PCBs, pesticides, radiation, etc.

[Zeitgeist]

48 minutes ago, ReeferMadness said:

Well, nobody suggested ceasing oil sands production right now but if it did, it would have a significant effect on CO2 reduction.  Prices would spike and people would use less oil.  It would take years to replace that production.

Meanwhile, with every spike and gyration in the price of gasoline, more and more people are opting out by buying electric vehicles. 

People whine incessantly about the price of gasoline and then run out and buy the biggest fuel waster they can find. The problem isn't that gasoline is to expensive; it's that it has been way too cheap for way too long.

So young commuters beyond the range of a realistic rail commute can drop $40,000 on an electric vehicle.  Oh wait, the battery won’t last long enough for them to make a return trip.  No problem, they can move to the city, closer to work.  Oh snap, an entry level condo is $500000.00, so they’ll need to put $100000.00 down to get a mortgage.  Oh well, they can rent.

Basically you’re advocating for adding to the already high cost of living.  If someone tries to buy a cheaper used car with a combustion engine and live in the more affordable countryside, he or she will have to spend $120.00 plus a week on gas under the fully implemented carbon tax.  How long do you expect taxpayers to put up with this scheme?   Oh and people who drive for a living?  Find another job.  

Edited May 27, 2019 by Zeitgeist

[ReeferMadness]

6 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

So young commuters beyond the range of a realistic rail commute can drop $40,000 on an electric vehicle.  Oh wait, the battery won’t last long enough for them to make a return trip.  No problem, they can move to the city, closer to work.  Oh snap, an entry level condo is $500000.00, so they’ll need to put $100000.00 down to get a mortgage.  Oh well, they can rent.

Basically you’re advocating for adding to the already high cost of living.  If someone tries to buy a cheaper used car with a combustion engine and live in the more affordable countryside, he or she will have to spend $120.00 plus a week on gas under the fully implemented carbon tax.  How long do you expect taxpayers to put up with this scheme?   Oh and people who drive for a living?  Find another job.  

Europe has much higher gas prices.  The last I checked, they hadn't degenerated to abject poverty.  In Norway, over half of new vehicles sold are EVs.  Maybe Norway is a total hellhole. Or maybe they're just smarter than we are.  Maybe they've figured out that the higher one time costs of EV's is offset by much lower operating costs.

What I'm advocating for is that people living today don't have the right to f*ck up the planet for people who are going to live 50 years from now.  Regardless of whether it raises their cost of living. Do you have a problem with that?

It's ironic that right wingers refer to people who listen to climate scientists as "climate alarmists" and then light their hair on fire at the thought of making changes that will improve everyone's life.  Just a few years ago, there was a guy on here who insisted that using renewable energy would send us back to the stone age. 

Who are the real alarmists?

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

Sure, if you like.  It's not important.

Clearly.

[eyeball]

9 minutes ago, ReeferMadness said:

It's ironic that right wingers refer to people who listen to climate scientists as "climate alarmists" and then light their hair on fire at the thought of making changes that will improve everyone's life.  

Who are the real alarmists?

Well, it appears the world can do just fine without an environment or ecosystem but not an economy. Its as if the economy was the first thing to emerge after the Big Bang/Genesis and it trumps everything else in existence. Touch the economy and we're all doomed.

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, ReeferMadness said:

Well, nobody suggested ceasing oil sands production right now but if it did, it would have a significant effect on CO2 reduction.  Prices would spike and people would use less oil.  It would take years to replace that production.

Meanwhile, with every spike and gyration in the price of gasoline, more and more people are opting out by buying electric vehicles. 

1) Ceasing oil sands production would probably result in a whopping .0000001% reduction in global CO2 emissions. Canadians would just import more oil from the US and abroad, and our entire country's CO2 emissions are probably less than what comes from within a 50km radius from the city center of Beijing or Shanghai. Furthermore, we probably need the extra CO2 in the atmosphere to help grow food fast enough for 7B people

2) It's not like buying/using an electric car has no carbon footprint or environmental impact, and they do have their serious disadvantages. 

[ReeferMadness]

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

1) Ceasing oil sands production would probably result in a whopping .0000001% reduction in global CO2 emissions. Canadians would just import more oil from the US and abroad, and our entire country's CO2 emissions are probably less than what comes from within a 50km radius from the city center of Beijing or Shanghai. Furthermore, we probably need the extra CO2 in the atmosphere to help grow food fast enough for 7B people

2) It's not like buying/using an electric car has no carbon footprint or environmental impact, and they do have their serious disadvantages. 

Sigh.

Another example of the Kruger-Dunning effect. 

Do some research and post again.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Well, it appears the world can do just fine without an environment or ecosystem but not an economy. Its as if the economy was the first thing to emerge after the Big Bang/Genesis and it trumps everything else in existence. Touch the economy and we're all doomed.

Tell them!  Get it all fixed.  Report back when they all reduce their activity so GHG levels start to fall.

I never realised it would be so simple.

[ReeferMadness]

2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Tell them!  Get it all fixed.  Report back when they all reduce their activity so GHG levels start to fall.

I never realised it would be so simple.

It is pretty simple.  The most difficult part is getting people to stop denying the change and looking for excuses why it shouldn't affect them.  Stanford University Mark Jacobson has done research that finds:

Quote

  future costs for producing clean energy are similar to a business-as-usual scenario of about 11 cents per kilowatt hour, similar to the average cost in America today. The air pollution and climate costs due to fossil fuels, however, are virtually eliminated by clean-energy technologies.

Stop obsessing over the problems and look for solutions.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, ReeferMadness said:

It is pretty simple.  The most difficult part is getting people to stop denying the change and looking for excuses why it shouldn't affect them.  Stanford University Mark Jacobson has done research that finds:

Stop obsessing over the problems and look for solutions.

No it's not.  The most difficult part is getting the worldwide cooperation required to actually get the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases to start falling.  So difficult, in fact, that it's not going to happen.

[ReeferMadness]

2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

No it's not.  The most difficult part is getting the worldwide cooperation required to actually get the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases to start falling.  So difficult, in fact, that it's not going to happen.

Well.  We're all gonna die then.  Let's just give up.

Good thing you're not one of those "alarmists".