Are humans really responsible for climate change?

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, OftenWrong said:

The narrative from the left is hopeless. They're not even sure what's more important to decreasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. Total CO2 production, or CO2 production per capita? 

 

When the big meteor hit causing the K-T Extinction...the Cretaceous world was already a very sick place. 

We live...like James Burke used to like to point-out...according to a vast array of precarious connections...any of which could prove to be our doom if they unwind. Every billion we add increases the probability of this great unwinding.

But, at least we don't have the Carboniferous Period's problem...too much damn oxygen. Brings a new menace to Thunderstorm Warnings.

 

[SpankyMcFarland]

Obviously, this is not an exact science, and I’m not sure how the whole issue of changing national borders etc. was managed here, but, by one estimate, the US has been responsible for something like 26% of cumulative global CO2 emissions since 1750, China 12% and India 3%.

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions

Many factors will have to be considered for the future including dramatic increases in population in the developing world. However, by region, Europe and North America have contributed far more of the existing excess burden of GHG than India or China however you slice it so it’s hardly unreasonable for us to be asked to take the lead, particularly as we have more resources to address the problem. 

Edited August 1, 2019 by SpankyMcFarland

[SpankyMcFarland]

25 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

The narrative from the left is hopeless. They're not even sure what's more important to decreasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. Total CO2 production, or CO2 production per capita? 

I imagine most of us agree that what really matters is global GHG production. Unfortunately, countries are the units we have to sort this problem out. 

[bush_cheney2004]

50 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Because you have people in many smaller countries like Canada claiming that their greenhouse gas output does not matter because their particular country is too small to affect the overall figure. If the US took the lead it could at least force North America to follow. Then we could see a coalition build to put pressure on the developing world to follow suit. Otherwise we are all headed for climate catastrophe.  

 

So you want the Americans to do the heavy lifting...not China...or India...or Brazil...or the EU.

The US is not forcing anybody in North America to fight climate change....people can do it all by themselves if they wish.

It is ironic to me that after all the bashing America takes on any number of issues, it is also expected to lead/force climate change action.

[SpankyMcFarland]

8 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

So you want the Americans to do the heavy lifting...not China...or India...or Brazil...or the EU.

The US is not forcing anybody in North America to fight climate change....people can do it all by themselves if they wish.

It is ironic to me that after all the bashing America takes on any number of issues, it is also expected to lead/force climate change action.

No, not at all. I want the US to START the heavy lifting. You live on this planet too, I presume? Europe and North America were the first to cause this problem so it is fitting that they should be the first in to tackle it. 

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

No, not at all. I want the US to START the heavy lifting. You live on this planet too, I presume? Europe and North America were the first to cause this problem so it is fitting that they should be the first in to tackle it. 

 

So you have lower expectations for your own country, and look to the Americans to provide the leadership.

The U.S. has already lowered emissions more than Canada, so it isn't working anyway.

[dialamah]

49 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Birth control for all would be a great step forward. Not just the option...but mandatory birth control. 

Not gonna happen.

Here's the rub...we should have thought about this MUCH earlier...when we were kids...unfortunately. We're already in the middle of Permian 2.0...will we be a victim of it or will some form humanity survive?

We did know about it when we were kids.   Concern about environmental impact of chemicals and garbage has been around since I was in grade school.    But we (me included) didn't really pay attention and here we are.

Rate of population growth is declining as a result of increasing education and affluence around the world and we'll plateau at around 9 billion in about 50 years.  

Or we'll all be dying from climate change.  Either easy,  birth control isn't needed. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

26 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

So you have lower expectations for your own country, and look to the Americans to provide the leadership.

The U.S. has already lowered emissions more than Canada, so it isn't working anyway.

No, I am quite happy to have the same expectations of Canada as I do the US but the US is much bigger and has more influence on other countries. In places like Canada, Belgium or Ireland, the argument from some fossil fuel enthusiasts is that we are too small to matter so let’s do nothing. The US can’t say that and it could bring Canada and Mexico along a more stringent path, and then the rest of the world. 

Fertility rates have fallen dramatically in some developing countries, e.g. Bangladesh. It can be done. 

Quote

https://www.dandc.eu/en/article/how-bangladesh-reduced-average-number-children-woman-mere-21

 

Edited August 1, 2019 by SpankyMcFarland

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

No, I am quite happy to have the same expectations of Canada as I do the US but the US is much bigger and has more influence on other countries. In places like Canada, Belgium or Ireland, the argument from some fossil fuel enthusiasts is that we are too small to matter so let’s do nothing. The US can’t say that and it could bring Canada and Mexico along a more stringent path, and then the rest of the world. 

Fertility rates have fallen dramatically in some developing countries, e.g. Bangladesh. It can be done. 

 

Not so much too small to matter so let’s do nothing, as too small to matter so let’s not do anything silly.

[DogOnPorch]

5 minutes ago, dialamah said:

We did know about it when we were kids. 

Overpopulation...a famous poster a lot of people had on their walls...from around 1970.

7 minutes ago, dialamah said:

 

Rate of population growth is declining as a result of increasing education and affluence around the world and we'll plateau at around 9 billion in about 50 years.  

Population is increasing exponentially. 

Nine billion in 50 years? We're at 8 billion now.

The only "plateauing" we'll be doing is via one of the various horsemen of the apocalypse. 

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, dialamah said:

We did know about it when we were kids.   Concern about environmental impact of chemicals and garbage has been around since I was in grade school.    But we (me included) didn't really pay attention and here we are.

Rate of population growth is declining as a result of increasing education and affluence around the world and we'll plateau at around 9 billion in about 50 years.  

Or we'll all be dying from climate change.  Either easy,  birth control isn't needed. 

I think 9 billion in fifty years will be too late.  Just my view.  No cites or links.

 

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, bcsapper said:

I think 9 billion in fifty years will be too late.  Just my view.  No cites or links.

 

 

Nine billion in five years is more likely.

[bush_cheney2004]

15 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

No, I am quite happy to have the same expectations of Canada as I do the US but the US is much bigger and has more influence on other countries. In places like Canada, Belgium or Ireland, the argument from some fossil fuel enthusiasts is that we are too small to matter so let’s do nothing. The US can’t say that and it could bring Canada and Mexico along a more stringent path, and then the rest of the world.

 

If it is so important, then Canada should do it without leadership from the United States (or any other nation).    The U.S. has enough issues to handle without having to baby-sit Canada, Belgium, or Ireland on "climate change".

 

[Dougie93]

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

If it is so important, then Canada should do it without leadership from the United States (or any other nation).    The U.S. has enough issues to handle without having to baby-sit Canada, Belgium, or Ireland on "climate change".

 

Canada is infantilizing, Canadians are infantilized, somebody has to baby sit them, and since their own government is worse than useless, it falls to your government to burp these babies and change their diapers for them.  Belgium and Ireland should not be dragged into this, it's only Canadians who suffer from the Canadian Disease.

For example I do a lot of business with Belgians, and I can tell you, they just roll their eyes at Canada's America Derangement Syndrome, and if the Belgians are going to scapegoat foreigners, it's invariably the French and Germans, America is not a Belgian obsession.

Canadians are the ones who fear, loathe, resent, and by extension hate America, since 1812, Belgium has its own bogeys, America is not one of them.

Really though, America is just a proxy, what priggish Victorian nanny police state Canadians really fear, loathe, resent and hate, is freedom.

As you know, freedom is scary, freedom is not a bed of roses, freedom has a price. 

Infantalized Canadians simply can't handle it, to Canadians, freedom is some sort of catastrophe being thrust upon them, thus why they recoil  from and spit venom at the land of the free and the home of the brave, who knew?

Edited August 1, 2019 by Dougie93

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, Spiderfish said:

Wood heat is so nice, and it's a great way to dodge those punitive carbon taxes.  Puttin one over on the man...good job.

My wood-stove is probably carbon neutral or close to it I should think.  I'm burning mature alder (much of it from my property) and removing the alder canopy shading the young conifers below will cause them to grow faster and absorb more CO2 while I'm also emitting it.  Aside from burning a bit of gas to cut the alder down I don't have to worry about CO2 emissions caused by shipping fuel to heat my house.

What really get's the man's goat is utilizing local resources and not paying to ship his from elsewhere.

Edited August 1, 2019 by eyeball

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

I imagine most of us agree that what really matters is global GHG production.

Except for those who seem to think our domestic emissions from producing oil is all that matters.  As if Canada were in a little bubble that is immune to the effects of our customers burning the worst CO2 laden oil on the planet.  We should be boycotted for exploiting the Tar Sands.

[SpankyMcFarland]

3 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Not so much too small to matter so let’s do nothing, as too small to matter so let’s not do anything silly.

Now that the evidence for climate change is overwhelming, some other reasons for inaction have to be found. 

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

So you have lower expectations for your own country, and look to the Americans to provide the leadership.

The U.S. has already lowered emissions more than Canada, so it isn't working anyway.

There is a bit of truth here.  I've shown many times in similar threads how badly Canada lags behind the US in reducing our emissions from refineries. That said, your country's success at reducing its CO2 emission are more a result of local, city and state governments taking action.  Almost like sanctuary cities that refuse to get with programs your federal government would prefer to see.

[eyeball]

28 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Now that the evidence for climate change is overwhelming, some other reasons for inaction have to be found. 

Why can't the apparently evidenced challenged simply admit they just don't give a shit?  Whatever happened to that good olde fashioned say-what-they-mean and mean-what-they-say attitude?

[Zeitgeist]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

Why can't the apparently evidenced challenged simply admit they just don't give a shit?  Whatever happened to that good olde fashioned say-what-they-mean and mean-what-they-say attitude?

Some provinces have very different priorities.  Many in BC try to be all about forests, tourism, and First Nations, so they fight Alberta oil production, even though B.C. has clear cut countless old growth forests and the reality is that, apart from the influx of retirees and Asian money, BC is heavily reliant on its resource sector for economic development.  

Quebec seems to oppose national projects unless they’re specifically for Quebec, even though the province is happy to take oil royalties from Alberta in the form of transfer payments.  Quebec, BC, and coal-free Ontario made some strides in emissions reductions, yet only Ontario seems to respect additional national priorities:  energy self-sufficiency, resource development across the country, and more environmentally friendly transportation of oil through pipelines rather than trucks and trains.  

I think that the only way to get all provinces on board with climate change initiatives is if Alberta and the energy sector are respected and factored into the discussion.  The Alberta NDP (and I normally don’t support the NDP) understood this and had decent climate change policies.  Now that Alberta has been isolated on the pipeline front by B.C. and Quebec, it has swung right and climate change policy will be scrapped in Alberta, the part of Canada where emissions really matter and undo the positive reductions in other provinces.  

We need a balanced approach to resource development and the environment if we’re going to get anywhere in Canada and the federal government needs to push harder on important priorities, such as standing up to Quebec on pipelines.  Otherwise Alberta won’t play ball and nothing we do in the rest of Canada to reduce emissions will make much difference to Canada’s overall emissions levels.  

Edited August 1, 2019 by Zeitgeist

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

 Otherwise Alberta won’t play ball and nothing we do in the rest of Canada to reduce emissions will make much difference to Canada’s overall emissions levels.  

What will make a real difference in terms of global emissions is if we leave our Tar Sands in the ground where they belong.

[Guest]

9 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Now that the evidence for climate change is overwhelming, some other reasons for inaction have to be found. 

The evidence is irrelevant when it comes to silliness.

[Guest]

8 hours ago, eyeball said:

Why can't the apparently evidenced challenged simply admit they just don't give a shit?  Whatever happened to that good olde fashioned say-what-they-mean and mean-what-they-say attitude?

Because those who actually believe the evidence realise that virtue signalling stupidity isn't going to achieve anything.  Those who think it will are the ones with evidence issues.

[SpankyMcFarland]

Between denying the very existence of man-made climate change and claiming nothing at all can be done about it lies a whole range of strategies to combat its effects. If that’s virtue signalling, count me in. 

[DogOnPorch]

23 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Between denying the very existence of man-made climate change and claiming nothing at all can be done about it lies a whole range of strategies to combat its effects. If that’s virtue signalling, count me in. 

 

Gonna fix global warming...and go.

What's step one again?