What to do about China

[Queenmandy85]

39 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Yes, politics is acting. Reminds me that Mr. Trudeau's only work experience was a brief as a drama teacher.

Those that can, do. Those that cannot... teach.

You figure it out  

Sorry, refresh my memory. Who won the last two elections?

Why can't the CPC find a leader who can win? 

[OftenWrong]

6 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Sorry, refresh my memory. Who won the last two elections?

Why can't the CPC find a leader who can win? 

Because they don't have good hair. Obviously!

[Argus]

11 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

The best thing about democracy is that everyone always agrees.  This should be simple.

Do you want everyone to agree? China does. This is how they get people to agree. I like the phrase 'a great sea of placidity'.

At a time when digital media is deepening social divides in Western democracies, China is manipulating online discourse to enforce the Communist Party’s consensus. To stage-manage what appeared on the Chinese internet early this year, the authorities issued strict commands on the content and tone of news coverage, directed paid trolls to inundate social media with party-line blather and deployed security forces to muzzle unsanctioned voices.

Though China makes no secret of its belief in rigid internet controls, the documents convey just how much behind-the-scenes effort is involved in maintaining a tight grip. It takes an enormous bureaucracy, armies of people, specialized technology made by private contractors, the constant monitoring of digital news outlets and social media platforms — and, presumably, lots of money.

https://www.propublica.org/article/leaked-documents-show-how-chinas-army-of-paid-internet-trolls-helped-censor-the-coronavirus?utm_source=ground.news&utm_medium=referral

[Argus]

10 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Sorry, refresh my memory. Who won the last two elections?

Why can't the CPC find a leader who can win? 

My own opinion is Quebec. They filter potential leaders by their ability to speak French. But since their base of support is in the West, that screens out 95% of potential candidates. So we wind up with guys like Joe Clark, Stephen Harper and Andrew Scheer, who, to put it mildly, are not great communicators and have very little charisma.

But at least they speak French!

And every election Quebec gives them the back of their hand anyway.

[Queenmandy85]

11 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Reminds me that Mr. Trudeau's only work experience was a brief as a drama teacher.

He was a math teacher who also taught drama. What did Harper ever do?

[Queenmandy85]

15 minutes ago, Argus said:

But at least they speak French!

French is the traditional language of Court. 

[Argus]

7 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

He was a math teacher who also taught drama. What did Harper ever do?

Ran this country with a degree of competence unmatched since he departed.

[Argus]

2 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

French is the traditional language of Court. 

And if you want mediocrities in charge - because they speak French - then well done.

[Queenmandy85]

Harper did nothing to address climate change, not that Trudeau has done much better.

[Army Guy]

10 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Sorry, refresh my memory. Who won the last two elections?

Why can't the CPC find a leader who can win? 

I think those that are very capable leaders in this country, are not one bit interested in the PM's job. And politics is all about pandering to the money, and this has transferred to the people right now the Canadian people are more interested in social programs, and what is in it for them,  which the left offers more of..

They are not interested in this nations economy or the kick starting of it, due to special interest groups taking control of almost every agenda...., take for example climate change ,BLM, no guns , etc. The left are very passionate about this topics so much so there is NO debating them anywhere, if you don't agree 100% your a far right extremists not worthy of conversation.

 

 

[Queenmandy85]

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

And if you want mediocrities in charge - because they speak French - then well done.

Good people don't want to endure the punishment we inflict on anyone going into public service. Who wants to work 18 hours a day, 7 days a week, working for millions of ungrateful people who think they know everything and believe you are a lying crook, no matter how good you are, even though they hired you. You have access to the advice of a professional public service, yet every voter from St. Johns to Tahsis thinks they could do a better job but won't get off their butts to do it. Jean Chretien was right. We are a nation of whiners and bitchers.

Politics is a participation sport. If you didn't campaign, you can't complain. 

If you think the people in charge are mediocrities, what did you do to put some one better in charge. You could have found someone better and got them nominated and elected, but you didn't. That is on you. Don't blame anyone else. As Menken said, "Democracy is the system of government that gives people the government they want, good and hard."

[Queenmandy85]

3 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

take for example climate change ... etc. The left are very passionate about this topics so much so there is NO debating them anywhere, if you don't agree 100% your a far right extremists not worthy of conversation.

Climate change is the issue we all need to be passionate about. Carbon emissions inhibit re-radiation of energy. You can demonstrate that in any under graduate lab. It is predictable, measurable and repeatable. It has nothing to do with politics. If we do not make the changes globally now, life is going to be very bad in the near future.

To tie this in to the OP, China is starting to make the required changes including developing LIFTR reactors.

[Army Guy]

1 minute ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Climate change is the issue we all need to be passionate about. Carbon emissions inhibit re-radiation of energy. You can demonstrate that in any under graduate lab. It is predictable, measurable and repeatable. It has nothing to do with politics. If we do not make the changes globally now, life is going to be very bad in the near future.

To tie this in to the OP, China is starting to make the required changes including developing LIFTR reactors.

I'm not saying it is not, but today in the pandemic and all the damage it has done to our economy,how it has uncovered so many other items that need to be fixed, how little control we have over our medication, PPE, Medical machines, our long term home care, etc etc.

, i don't think climate change should be at the top of the list, we have enough on our plate to worry about, and now the liberals are pushing the great reset, which includes heavy green investments... 

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Climate change is the issue we all need to be passionate about. Carbon emissions inhibit re-radiation of energy. You can demonstrate that in any under graduate lab. It is predictable, measurable and repeatable. It has nothing to do with politics. If we do not make the changes globally now, life is going to be very bad in the near future.

To tie this in to the OP, China is starting to make the required changes including developing LIFTR reactors.

Blather. China is doing nothing of the sort. It's still building coal plants. It has, however, learned how to make the correct noises to please the woke left in the West. Oh yes, it'll build some solar farms and such, but it's not going to rely on them. And it has made no commitment to lowering its CO2 emissions, nor even stopping their growth. If it can bring in power at cheaper prices, ie, through nuclear, it will do so, but it certainly will not sacrifice its economy for climate change.

The Chinese leadership mouths all of the slogans of the environmental activists, takes their money and proclaims partnerships, while at the same time greatly expanding the number of coal-fired power plants. Environmental lobbies like Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council, being dupes or worse, sing the praises of the world’s largest polluter — because of China’s “good intentions” as contrasted with their actions. China now has planned or has under construction more coal-fired power plants than rest of the world combined. At the same time, the U.S. has been greatly reducing its dependence on coal-fired plants, by shutting down many of them.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/dec/14/how-americas-useful-idiots-allow-china-to-ignore-e/

[Queenmandy85]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

i don't think climate change should be at the top of the list, we have enough on our plate to worry about

There is nothing more important than the climate crisis in the making. We will always have things on our plate. when the global temperature rise becomes self generating, the plate is going to be empty. What took thousands of years in the last warming is now happening in a few centuries, so that the normal natural mitigation mechanisms cannot keep up. If, as Argus believes, China will not make the sacrifices required, then the rest of us must carry their load. (I disagree with Argus on this point, but what ever.)

Nuclear energy is an important factor in reversing the situation. If we have to, we should pay China to transition to nuclear power. We should already be building reactors in Africa, and South America. We could have already transitioned to nuclear power in Canada and the US 30 years ago if we had put money into the education system. How did we allow anyone to leave school without a solid education in math, physics, chemistry and geography?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Queenmandy85 said:

There is nothing more important than the climate crisis in the making. We will always have things on our plate. when the global temperature rise becomes self generating, the plate is going to be empty. What took thousands of years in the last warming is now happening in a few centuries, so that the normal natural mitigation mechanisms cannot keep up. If, as Argus believes, China will not make the sacrifices required, then the rest of us must carry their load. (I disagree with Argus on this point, but what ever.)

Nuclear energy is an important factor in reversing the situation. If we have to, we should pay China to transition to nuclear power. We should already be building reactors in Africa, and South America. We could have already transitioned to nuclear power in Canada and the US 30 years ago if we had put money into the education system. How did we allow anyone to leave school without a solid education in math, physics, chemistry and geography?

The idea that we should pay the world's second largest economy to do its bit is risible, I'm afraid.

You have my support on the nuclear idea.  Now see if you can get those who protest the loudest about climate change to get on board with that.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

There is nothing more important than the climate crisis in the making. We will always have things on our plate. when the global temperature rise becomes self generating, the plate is going to be empty. What took thousands of years in the last warming is now happening in a few centuries, so that the normal natural mitigation mechanisms cannot keep up. If, as Argus believes, China will not make the sacrifices required, then the rest of us must carry their load.

There are 190 odd members of the UN. AFAIK less than three dozen (all western countries) have committed to lowering CO2 emissions. The rest, from India to Malaysia and Kenya, are building coal plants - hundreds of them. We could completely eliminate all CO2 emissions from Canada (at enormous economic cost) and the reduction would be outweighed by China's or India's increases in less than a year.

So no. I'm not going to make up for them. Particularly when the IPCC data suggests Canada will barely be affected by global warming. We'll get more drought and some flooding, but also more arable land.

Edited December 20, 2020 by Argus

[Army Guy]

2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

There is nothing more important than the climate crisis in the making. We will always have things on our plate. when the global temperature rise becomes self generating, the plate is going to be empty. What took thousands of years in the last warming is now happening in a few centuries, so that the normal natural mitigation mechanisms cannot keep up. If, as Argus believes, China will not make the sacrifices required, then the rest of us must carry their load. (I disagree with Argus on this point, but what ever.)

Nuclear energy is an important factor in reversing the situation. If we have to, we should pay China to transition to nuclear power. We should already be building reactors in Africa, and South America. We could have already transitioned to nuclear power in Canada and the US 30 years ago if we had put money into the education system. How did we allow anyone to leave school without a solid education in math, physics, chemistry and geography?

Sorry I don't buy it either, I do believe there is a lot of things we COULD do for climate change, and most Canadians talk a good game, but none are willing to sacrifice anything for the UN's or Justins climate change goals... It's hard to grab onto an idea that politicians are really not willing to commit to.  Money talks and so far their is no money in carbon reduction... yes in the future, but right now there are not many GOOD sustainable carbon reduction projects, I like the Nuke option, but then again there is a large anti nuke lobby group, which happens to be attached to the climate change group...

One would think we would need to reset our economy first and foremost, by first support everything that has been proven to work. Use some of that money Justin is spending or spent, increasing our capacities for all our resources, yes lets start with investment into those items , I mean the Chinese seem to think they are worth while to invest in as they are sinking billions into our resources....

We are going to have a huge deficit come tax time, and Canadians are going to be looking to point fingers, and good old Justin is going to be the target.. Because that is what we do as Canadians blame others, for our problems. They like taking money but don't like to pay it back.... 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

1. most Canadians talk a good game, but none are willing to sacrifice anything for the UN's or Justins climate change goals...

2. Canadians are going to be looking to point fingers, and good old Justin is going to be the target..

3. Because that is what we do as Canadians blame others, for our problems. 

1. None ?  Overstatement.
https://www.theguardian.pe.ca/news/canada/two-thirds-of-canadians-say-carbon-tax-will-affect-their-vote-poll-321564/

2. Hard to imagine Canadians wondering why the deficit went up.
3. Another patriot who hates Canadians I see.  Ok.

[Queenmandy85]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

So no. I'm not going to make up for them. Particularly when the IPCC data suggests Canada will barely be affected by global warming. We'll get more drought and some flooding, but also more arable land.

Over what time frame? 

[Queenmandy85]

At what point do we do something? Do we start when the glaciers stop providing us with drinking water? ...when the sea levels inundate Bangladesh, the Gulf of Mexico and the island nations of the world? ...when the deep ocean currents grind to a halt? ...or when the sea levels begin to drop? There is a point closing in on us where the process becomes a self-generating heat machine.

I'm not one of those who say the world will end...at least not for a few billion years, but it could soon end up as a sterile rock shrouded in cloud. like Venus only a couple of hundred degrees cooler. It is called the Greenhouse effect for a reason.

Edited December 21, 2020 by Queenmandy85

[Queenmandy85]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

Particularly when the IPCC data suggests Canada will barely be affected by global warming. We'll get more drought and some flooding, but also more arable land.

The permafrost is already melting, where enormous amounts of methane will be released.

[Argus]

54 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Over what time frame? 

It was at the year 2100.

I expect we will have fusion power fifty or sixty year before that, and THAT is what is going to wind up significantly reducing CO2 emissions as we switch over to fusion and electric vehicles (including planes) take over.

[Queenmandy85]

Being the optimist I am, I am hoping you are right. As a wannabe historian, my view of time is longer. Near term=400 years, mid term 800 - 1000 years.

One concern I have is the conservation of iron ore, coal and oil for the mid-term. That is why I am against exporting them any where, especially China. perfecting fusion and thorium power isn't going to be much use if we don't have the steel to build the reactors and generators or the lubrication to operate them.

Edited December 21, 2020 by Queenmandy85

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

At what point do we do something? Do we start when the glaciers stop providing us with drinking water? ...when the sea levels inundate Bangladesh, the Gulf of Mexico and the island nations of the world? ...when the deep ocean currents grind to a halt? ...or when the sea levels begin to drop? There is a point closing in on us where the process becomes a self-generating heat machine.

I'm not one of those who say the world will end...at least not for a few billion years, but it could soon end up as a sterile rock shrouded in cloud. like Venus only a couple of hundred degrees cooler. It is called the Greenhouse effect for a reason.

It's an interesting question.  Why do you think we haven't done anything yet?  We know about it.  We've had a lot of meetings and forums, and made a lot of commitments that we have failed to meet. (The species, I mean)

I don't think we are capable of that level of cooperation. 

What is more likely to happen than us finding a solution is that we become ever more insular as the inhabitable world shrinks.   Expect those on the outside to use whatever methods they need to to get in.

As you say, we are reaching a point now where naturally frozen methane is starting to thaw and gas off.  It doesn't last as long in the atmosphere as CO2, but its effects are ~20 times worse.  A natural lag in the systems means that even if we were somehow able to stop all greenhouse gas emissions, right now, the system would surge ahead with climate change for another ten to twenty years at least before slowing and stopping.  And even then, there will be no reversing for much longer.  And we're not going to stop all greenhouse gas emissions for a long time yet.

We are like a smoker, who won't even consider quitting until the lung cancer diagnosis is confirmed.  And even then, they might not quit. 

Edited December 21, 2020 by bcsapper