Are humans really responsible for climate change?

[Moonlight Graham]

On 12/30/2018 at 10:57 AM, Canuck100 said:

It appears from most if not all MSM reports that this question has already been settled.

I have written the governing party of my own province asking their policy on climate change. I suspect they don’t have one or are trying to avoid the subject. 

The problem in my oppinion is that the answer to this question was never properly answered. For years now MSM has simply said “scientists agree with each other that humans have caused climate change (global warming) or whatever.

Do not depend on the MSM to educate you on climate science.  Go right to the source and read the actual science.

[Zeitgeist]

On 10/7/2019 at 8:02 AM, cannuck said:

just some food for thought.

agenda 21:   

 

So here's my take on Agenda 21, because I have read Maurice Strong's autobiography and for a period I studied major NGO's and international organizations.  There is a very reasonable argument to be made that fighting climate change is important and GG emissions must be reduced such that global annual average temperatures don't rise by 2 or more percent.  However, there is as strong an argument to make that the cost of fighting climate change to the extent that would make a meaningful difference, especially in a country as small as Canada, is economically onerous. 

Essentially governments must respond, but there is no appetite for the kind of response needed, unless you wish to move into a cave and renounce modern civilization, which is energy intensive.  We always have to be careful with programs like Agenda 21 that demand results without at the same time requiring an open discussion about the means to achieve those results and the costs.  I do think climate change can become an excuse for oppression, such as property collectivization and transfer of income from private individuals to the state in the form of massive taxation.   If virtually all production has a carbon footprint, then a carbon tax, if honestly implemented, is a tax on existence.  It's easy to see how this could morph into radical population control, and in non-democratic countries, outright population abandonment or containment.  The wall along the southern US is an iteration of Hadrian's wall that will become a ubiquitous theme as the world population rises along with global temperature and the politics of fear surrounding it.  One answer will be to stem the tide of immigration and protect your assets.  There will be validity in this fear too.  There will be those who try to mitigate the problem through macroeconomic planning, but nativist populism will see this as an undemocratic intrusion into local jurisdictions.  There will be truth in this, yet global responses and agreements will also be necessary.  

Right now the rules of the game are being debated.  The fear is that such global agreements create winners and losers.  For example, China and developing countries win because the rules to which they have to adhere are more lenient than for developed western  countries.  This is the transfer of wealth out of the developed world that many people fear, for good reason.  There will be debates about fairness, not unlike the debates elsewhere on this site about hiring policies.  In the end, those with the means and power to set their own terms in this game will do so. 

While I do think we need global solutions, I think it's important for countries like Canada to always have the discretion and ability to break with the UN and even allies when it is deemed necessary by our people.  That's why economic, and yes, military strength, are critical, to protect our sovereignty and be masters of our own destiny.  We should not be allowing government to increase public debt to unsustainable levels or to transfer citizens' income in the form of taxation to non-Canadians and external affairs except where clear humanitarian and Canadian interests are at stake.  Fighting climate change may be important, but only if by doing so we are furthering our overall interests.

For now, implement the cheap low-hanging fruit green policies that clearly benefit the economy and quality of life, such as planning communities with workplaces and amenities close at hand, including a local energy and food supply.  Change building codes to incorporate affordable green building systems.   Build widespread rapid transit.   These measures will reduce greenhouse gases and improve both the economy and quality of life without substantially raising the cost of living. 

Edited October 9, 2019 by Zeitgeist

[cannuck]

Zeit: you pretty much sum up my take on this matter - and probably more accurately and concisely than I would have written.

In the end, goal of 2030 is to reduce population.  That is one thing that lies at the bottom of almost ALL of our problems in sustainability.   What I DON"T like, is the collectivist, Marxist globalist undertones of the UN.  What is needed is some kind of clear agenda that the world as a whole can buy, not some socialist pipedream that can be rammed down our throats.

[dialamah]

The Global Commission on Adaptation, consisting of 34 heads of State and private industry from countries around the world and headed by Bill Gates, Ban Ki Moon and Kristalina Georgrieva, estimated that it will cost about 1.8 trillion dollars over the next decade to adapt to climate change.  But to fail to adapt will cost 7.8 trillion dollars.  

Our changing climate is going to cost lots of money for adaptation or mitigatation.  If we expect government to do it all, that is going to mean taxes pay for it.  

Climate change will likely reduce population dramatically in poorer countries of the world - which is no doubt why its the "solution" lately touted by Westerners who feel relatively safe.  But people in Western countries will die as well, as a direct result of climate change.  Disease, natural disasters and conflict will all affect Canadians, even if the effect is less than that felt elsewhere. 

Water is already a significant source of conflict around the world and its only going to get worse as the climate change progresses.  With industry dying and people rioting due to water scarcity,  how long would it be before California starts eyeing Canada's water supply?  

It's pretty sad that most Canadians, when polled, said they would not even give $100 toward climate change adaptation.  We are pretty screwed, and I'm starting to think we deserve it.  

[bush_cheney2004]

7 minutes ago, dialamah said:

...Water is already a significant source of conflict around the world and its only going to get worse as the climate change progresses.  With industry dying and people rioting due to water scarcity,  how long would it be before California starts eyeing Canada's water supply? 

 

Meh...Canada already takes full advantage of California's existing domestic water supplies through agriculture imports (about $4 billion US each year).

[Army Guy]

10 hours ago, dialamah said:

The Global Commission on Adaptation, consisting of 34 heads of State and private industry from countries around the world and headed by Bill Gates, Ban Ki Moon and Kristalina Georgrieva, estimated that it will cost about 1.8 trillion dollars over the next decade to adapt to climate change.  But to fail to adapt will cost 7.8 trillion dollars.  

Our changing climate is going to cost lots of money for adaptation or mitigatation.  If we expect government to do it all, that is going to mean taxes pay for it.  

Climate change will likely reduce population dramatically in poorer countries of the world - which is no doubt why its the "solution" lately touted by Westerners who feel relatively safe.  But people in Western countries will die as well, as a direct result of climate change.  Disease, natural disasters and conflict will all affect Canadians, even if the effect is less than that felt elsewhere. 

Water is already a significant source of conflict around the world and its only going to get worse as the climate change progresses.  With industry dying and people rioting due to water scarcity,  how long would it be before California starts eyeing Canada's water supply?  

It's pretty sad that most Canadians, when polled, said they would not even give $100 toward climate change adaptation.  We are pretty screwed, and I'm starting to think we deserve it.  

Welcome to the real world, in which people vote for PM's not for what they can do for the nation, or what effect we could have on world policies, Canadians want to know what is in it for them...they can be bought for a few dollars....Yes we all stand up and listen when it comes to climate change but as soon as someone mentions the cost everyone sits down and ignores the speaker...Like you said we have done this to ourselves, and we do deserve what ever we sow....this happens with all issues in Canada if it costs money forget it....there is no will, not for climate change, fossil fuels, change of any type, not even for when the constitution is broken..... your fighting a lost cause....