The Green Rise in Canada

[-1=e^ipi]

39 minutes ago, eyeball said:

No but its certainly enough to knock much of our global civilization off its pedestal.  That could lead us towards greater risk of extinction as certain powers fight and squabble over whose to blame, habitable areas and resources.

 

I invite you to look at the empirical estimates of the damages of climate change, by economists such as William Nordhaus, who won the noble memorial prize last year. I fail to see how the magnitude of damages are anywhere close enough to lead to mass global conflict.

 

If you disagree then please publish your empirically-based extinction or conflict model in a peer reviewed scientific model. I look forward to reading your peer reviewed paper.

Edited May 11, 2019 by -1=e^ipi

[eyeball]

6 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

I invite you to look at the empirical estimates of the damages of climate change, by economists such as William Nordhaus, who won the noble memorial prize last year. I fail to see how the magnitude of damages are anywhere close enough to lead to mass global conflict.

 

If you disagree then please publish your empirically-based extinction or conflict model in a peer reviewed scientific model. I look forward to reading your peer reviewed paper.

I'll pass thanks, I may not be a scientist or a mathematician but I can tell the difference between what a vast VAST majority of scientists looks like compared to a small handful of naysayers and trolls.  The fact this ratio is not changing in any meaningful way unless its to strengthen the vast majority's case is enough in my estimation to make it rock solid and I'll be voting accordingly.

[-1=e^ipi]

6 hours ago, eyeball said:

I'll pass thanks, I may not be a scientist or a mathematician but I can tell the difference between what a vast VAST majority of scientists looks like compared to a small handful of naysayers and trolls.  The fact this ratio is not changing in any meaningful way unless its to strengthen the vast majority's case is enough in my estimation to make it rock solid and I'll be voting accordingly.

This is an interesting misrepresentation tactic that you are employing. We were discussing mainstream estimates of climate changes by mainstream climate economists (such as Nordhaus) who use mainstream climate science to create their mainstream estimates.

But then you try to associate my position to that of "a handful of naysayers and trolls"?

 

Please, don't misrepresent me.

[-1=e^ipi]

On this topic, here is a statement by Gavin Schmidt, a lead climate scientist in NASA:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/02/the-best-case-for-worst-case-scenarios/

"But some things can be examined and ruled out. Imminent massive methane releases that are large enough to seriously affect global climate are not going to happen (there isn’t that much methane around, the Arctic was warmer than present both in the early Holocene and last interglacial and nothing similar has occurred). Neither will a massive oxygen depletion event in the ocean release clouds of hydrogen sulfide poisoning all life on land. Insta-freeze conditions driven by a collapse in the North Atlantic circulation (cf. “The Day After Tomorrow”) can be equally easily discounted. "

 

Eyeball, in your opinion, is Gavin Schmidt a naysayer or troll?

Edited May 12, 2019 by -1=e^ipi

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Please, don't misrepresent me.

I couldn't if I wanted too because where you stand is impossible to tell.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Eyeball, in your opinion, is Gavin Schmidt a naysayer or troll?

More importantly to me, does he want to take action or merely talk about acting.

The issue afaic is settled and has been for years.  I get it that things change and that there may be gaps in our knowledge but I'd rather err on the side of acting than err on the side of inaction. It's simply the most prudent thing to do in my mind.

[-1=e^ipi]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

I couldn't if I wanted too because where you stand is impossible to tell.

I've explained my various aspects of my position before, not my fault if its too nuanced for you.

• I support a global pigouvian tax to internalize the externalities of CO2, CH4 and N2O.
• I think that integrated assessment models, such as those by William Nordhaus, who won the Nobel memorial prize in economics last year, are the best methods we have to evaluate the optimum taxation level.
• It does not make sense to ignore the free rider problem while trying to get to a global pigouvian tax.
• I agree with mainstream climate science as it is very well supported if you look at the scientific papers.

Edited May 12, 2019 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

44 minutes ago, eyeball said:

More importantly to me, does he want to take action or merely talk about acting.

The issue afaic is settled and has been for years.  I get it that things change and that there may be gaps in our knowledge but I'd rather err on the side of acting than err on the side of inaction. It's simply the most prudent thing to do in my mind.

So to you, the value of the work of a scientist depends on the policy outcomes they support? Even if they are a well respected climate scientist who is director of the NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies?

 

The value of the work of a scientist depends on the merits of their arguments and methodologies in their scientific work.

[eyeball]

58 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

I've explained my various aspects of my position before, not my fault if its too nuanced for you.

• I support a global pigouvian tax to internalize the externalities of CO2, CH4 and N2O.
• I think that integrated assessment models, such as those by William Nordhaus, who won the Nobel memorial prize in economics last year, are the best methods we have to evaluate the optimum taxation level.
• It does not make sense to ignore the free rider problem while trying to get to a global pigouvian tax.
• I agree with mainstream climate science as it is very well supported if you look at the scientific papers.

Great, any meaningful action is welcome.  In addition to these I think we should also stop digging fossil fuels out of the ground to sell abroad and utilize what we need in the interim until other sources replace them are on stream including nuclear. My caveat to allowing the nuclear option is that we monitor operators and regulators to an extent that would make Orwell blush.

Why should be obvious as evidenced by things like the official tolerance for SNC's behaviour and of course we need look no farther than our current rapacious oil industry and what passes for it's 'oversight' right-now.

Quote

 

Oilsands CO2 emissions may be far higher than companies report, scientists say

A number of major oilsands operations in northern Alberta seem to be emitting significantly more carbon pollution than companies have been reporting, newly published research from federal scientists suggests, which could have profound consequences for government climate-change strategies.

 

 

Quote

 

In 2001, federal, provincial and industry officials agreed to move Canadian refinery emissions in line with U.S. benchmarks — a goal that remains far from complete 17 years later.

The key culprit behind the Canada/U.S. emissions gap, say experts, is less rigorous industry regulation and enforcement in Canada.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4176459/pollution-from-canadian-refineries-an-embarrassment-compared-to-u-s/

 

   

Edited May 12, 2019 by eyeball

[eyeball]

57 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

So to you, the value of the work of a scientist depends on the policy outcomes they support? Even if they are a well respected climate scientist who is director of the NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies?

Not at all, and what would really get my attention is if what that scientist says suddenly causes the vast VAST majority of scientists who've been adamant for decades that action is needed...decades ago...to suddenly give pause to consider.

[Dougie93]

The Greens in Canada are just disaffected Liberals.

They're not the NDP because the Greens are not beholden to labour.

They're just Liberal elitists, who don't want to be associated with the Liberal brand anymore.

[Dougie93]

I actually walked past  the venue here when the Green party guy was giving a speech to his flock.

Bunch of aging boomers, mostly old ladies.

[Dougie93]

Obviously I don't like the left,  none the less, my advice to the left is stick with the Liberals, the NDP is enough of a loser party, the Greens aren't going to be any better.

With either the NDP or the Greens, you might win an election, but as soon as the dingbat utopian policies run into the reality of the economy, you'll get annilhated like Rachel Notley and Bob Rae.

Only the Liberals are able to do business, and thus only the Liberals can hold the majority for any prolonged period.

Going NDP or Green just ends up empowering the Cuckservatives in the end.

The Liberals are the best you're ever gonna get, that's as far left as an economy totally dependent on American corporations can ever go.

Canada is too parochial to ever have a dynamic economy, so don't have any delusions that you are ever going to free yourselves from the corporate hegemon.

 

 

Edited May 12, 2019 by Dougie93

[OftenWrong]

53 minutes ago, eyeball said:

My caveat to allowing the nuclear option is that we monitor operators and regulators to an extent that would make Orwell blush.

Why should be obvious as evidenced by things like the official tolerance for SNC's behaviour and of course we need look no farther than our current rapacious oil industry and what passes for it's 'oversight' right-now.

Such comparisons do not hold when you consider the controlling/political influence of OPEC. In nuclear there is no similar comparator.

[Dougie93]

The Soviets monitored things in an Orwellian way, how'd that work out at Chernobyl?

 

[eyeball]

Just now, Dougie93 said:

The Soviets monitored things in an Orwellian way, how'd that work out at Chernobyl?

Who monitored the Soviets?

Exactly...no wonder Chernobyl didn't work out.

[eyeball]

5 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Such comparisons do not hold when you consider the controlling/political influence of OPEC. In nuclear there is no similar comparator.

OPEC is controlling our oil industry compliance and enforcement standards and then telling federal and provincial governments to look the other way?

I guess its a little late to start worrying about Sharia taking over our country.

[Dougie93]

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Who monitored the Soviets?

Exactly...no wonder Chernobyl didn't work out.

Your beloved centrally planned socialism simply incited decay, moral, institutional,  and industrial, then it crumbled into a meltdown

 

 

Edited May 12, 2019 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

You know the Soviets were actually masters of nuclear technology, they built the most advanced reactors ever devised for the Alfa class submarines.

The problem was the moribund socialist economy, which simply resulted in lack of capacity to repair and replace, which simply caused things to age and then break.

Edited May 12, 2019 by Dougie93

[eyeball]

Just now, Dougie93 said:

You're beloved centrally planned socialism simply incited decay, moral, institutional,  and industrial, then it crumbled into a meltdown

Again I ask who monitored the Soviets?  They frittered and mismanaged it all away because no one was keeping a proper eye on things.  You seem to think our country is following the Soviets like the proverbial Dodo for much the same reasons so again I ask, who isn't monitoring Ottawa the provinces the oil industry and thereby letting them get away with shit they should be in jail for?  

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Again I ask who monitored the Soviets?  They frittered and mismanaged it all away because no one was keeping a proper eye on things.  You seem to think our country is following the Soviets like the proverbial Dodo for much the same reasons so again I ask, who isn't monitoring Ottawa the provinces the oil industry and thereby letting them get away with shit they should be in jail for?  

No, what happens is, the Orwellian all seeing eye is blinkered by the very Orwellian paranoia which you embrace.  The Orwellian eye can't see the forest through the trees.

In terms of Canada, the oil industry has all the leverage, Canada has a lot of oil, but it's not light sweet crude, so if Canada tries to leverage the oil industry, they just walk away, because Canadian oil is not that profitable.

 

[eyeball]

3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

The problem was the moribund socialist economy, which simply resulted in lack of capacity to repair and replace, which simply caused things to age and then break.

What made it moribund was a fundamental lack of freedom especially to hold the government accountable.  We still apparently have the freedom to do that but we don't...so its clear what the problem is and who's ultimately responsible here.

[Dougie93]

7 minutes ago, eyeball said:

What made it moribund was a fundamental lack of freedom especially to hold the government accountable.  We still apparently have the freedom to do that but we don't...so its clear what the problem is and who's ultimately responsible here.

No, we can't hold the government accountable, because its an asymmetrical Liberal dictatorship, the Liberals run things by academia, the unions, the media and the bureaucracy.

The government is fundamentally Liberal to the core, even when you vote the Liberals out, their proxies continue to run things regardless.

The only way to hold the political elites accountable in Canada would be revolution to bring Canada down.

In terms of who is responsible, first off, Canada is a colony by nature,  and Canadians are colonials, so they don't take responsibility for anything as a collective.

Second, Canadians are now totally bourgeois, they can't stand the slightest bit of pain nor suffering for any cause, so they are totally dependent on interests beyond their control.

 

Edited May 12, 2019 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

Like you may not like the Harpercons, but what they prove is that the permanently entrenched Liberal government simply slow walks and sidesteps and waylays anybody other than the Liberals.

So even if you elected some hardcore socialist lefties, the permanently  entrenched Liberal government would simply slow walk, sidestep and waylay them as well.

Canada is the Liberal Party of Canada,  if you wish to end that, you'll have to end Canada itself, all roads lead to the Liberals, while Confederation is in effect.

Edited May 12, 2019 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

Anyways, getting back to nuclear,  Canada has encountered the same problem the Soviets did, which is just that infrastructure ends up being colossally expensive to build and maintain over the long term.  The the price of maintaining the reactors and containing  the plutonium they produce makes it into a fiscal sinkhole.