Is climate change, a major concern for Canadians ....

[taxme]

2 hours ago, bcsapper said:

No, you'll start to worry when those on the third floor kick your door in.

After they kick my door down, I will say come on in, and I will then start to hand out fishing rods and we can all start fishing. We will have to try and catch something to eat to live on until the floods go away. Just saying. 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, taxme said:

After they kick my door down, I will say come on in, and I will then start to hand out fishing rods and we can all start fishing. We will have to try and catch something to eat to live on until the floods go away. Just saying. 

So, you advocate for open borders as climate change gets worse?  Well, that's one view, sure.

[taxme]

48 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

So, you advocate for open borders as climate change gets worse?  Well, that's one view, sure.

I have never advocated for open borders at all, and I never will. Do you think that because some people are having some problems with some climate change activity going on in their countries that we should now start to think about opening up the border gates for all of them to just be able to walk right on into Canada just because they may be having a flooding problem?  Do you want to have more carbon to be produced in Canada even more than what it is today with more new immigrants being allowed to immigrate to Canada? Create one climate disaster with another climate disaster?

I am having a big problem with the mentality of most Canadians and their crazy ideas and thoughts as to how to try and solve anything anymore. Politics in Canada should be their major concern, not climate change. Most Canadians have become so emotional and appear to truly do have a problem of trying to show more common sense and logic these days. Emotionalism runs rampant in their brains. My view is for people to stop going screwy over something they know nothing about. The things that are going on in the world have been going on for millions of years. Humans will survive no matter what nature throws at them. They just need to chill out, and stop letting the Canadian leftist liberal MSM from getting their undies all wet over nothing, if that is possible for some of them to be able to do. Just saying. 

Edited November 13, 2019 by taxme

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, taxme said:

I have never advocated for open borders at all, and I never will. Do you think that because some people are having some problems with some climate change activity going on in their countries that we should now start to think about opening up the border gates for all of them to just be able to walk right on into Canada just because they may be having a flooding problem?  Do you want to have more carbon to be produced in Canada even more than what it is today with more new immigrants being allowed to immigrate to Canada? Create one climate disaster with another climate disaster?

I am having a big problem with the mentality of most Canadians and their crazy ideas and thoughts as to how to try and solve anything anymore. Politics in Canada should be their major concern, not climate change. Most Canadians have become so emotional and appear to truly do have a problem of trying to show more common sense and logic these days. Emotionalism runs rampant in their brains. My view is for people to stop going screwy over something they know nothing about. The things that are going on in the world have been going on for millions of years. Humans will survive no matter what nature throws at them. They just need to chill out, and stop letting the Canadian leftist liberal MSM from getting their undies all wet over nothing, if that is possible for some of them to be able to do. Just saying. 

But the fishing rods...

[Argus]

14 hours ago, PPC2019 said:

I wanna know for certain. How bad is climate change going to be, my biggest fear is sea level rise... 5 feet would destroy all the worlds beaches. It would be a total disaster for tourism.

I've already posted cites on this topic. Go read them.

[taxme]

22 hours ago, bcsapper said:

But the fishing rods...

I just went out and bought a couple more new fishing rods just in case there will be more people wanting to enter my condo. I hope that I won't have to use any food to put on the lure. 

[-TSS-]

On 11/12/2019 at 3:15 AM, PPC2019 said:

Well I was told we would need 7 planets, if everyone live like a Canadian.

 

This is basically the globalist saying... We think we should reduce your wages by 7 times....

 

But everyone's missing the big picture... If we reduced the worlds population by 7 times, wouldn't that end that argument?

Gradual depopulation is the answer, than you don't have to pick winners and losers.

 

3 planets or 7 planets, it doesn't make any difference since all that is bullshit anyway. The third worlders are never told that we would need so and so many planets if everybody in the world bred like they do.

[cougar]

On 11/12/2019 at 11:06 AM, SkyHigh said:

....... if I could be shown  realistic, pragmatic policy to actually deal with the problem, I would gladly help pay for it.      ....................

Do you have any actual ideas, proposals, or solutions? because so far all you're saying is gov't bad, business bad. How does that help move us forward?

I am afraid "paying" doesn't work.  You pay with money that you get by destroying same environment. 

What you can do is ride a bicycle and collect plastic garbage by the side of the road,  but then recycling said plastic will again be harmful for the environment.  And you cannot spend too much time riding that bicycle since you need to eat and you need other things which means you have to spend more time doing other things most of which are again harmful to the environment.

Ideas?  Yes, plenty of them.   However those ideas lead to "reduction" not to "growth".   We have a lying government who sell us the concept that economic growth and carbon footprint reduction go hand in hand.  And some idiots believe them!

Edited November 17, 2019 by cougar

[cougar]

On 11/12/2019 at 12:32 PM, eyeball said:

We're playing it with ourselves, other species are collateral damage.

Not quite.   Other species are what we are praying one without officially being admitted.   When that excavator and bulldozer get up in that mountain they are there to invade and destroy and push the other species out.   Then comes the army of developers after them.  The food you have on your table is a result of pushing other species out so their food can become yours.

[eyeball]

9 hours ago, cougar said:

Not quite.   Other species are what we are praying one without officially being admitted.   When that excavator and bulldozer get up in that mountain they are there to invade and destroy and push the other species out.   Then comes the army of developers after them.  The food you have on your table is a result of pushing other species out so their food can become yours.

I used to catch other species for people's tables.  In any case I'm pretty fatalistic about this stuff and have accepted the fact we're driving the planet off a cliff.  It didn't/doesn't have to be that way but it is.  I'm quite certain there's nothing going on here that hasn't played out on millions of worlds throughout space and time. It's nature's way. A bulldozer plowing into the Earth's surface is as natural as an asteroid plowing thru it.

 

Quote

Other species are what we are praying one without officially being admitted.

This seems a little divorced from reality.  What on Earth does it mean to be officially admitted as a species?  We're not from Mars.    

Edited November 17, 2019 by eyeball

[cougar]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

This seems a little divorced from reality.  What on Earth does it mean to be officially admitted as a species?  We're not from Mars.    

What I meant was we have waged unofficial war on all other species, while flying under "sustainability", "green", "conservation" and other similar flags.

A bulldozer is not a natural thing.  It is our creation.  What you are saying is , since nature created us, all we create is also nature or was desired by nature.  I disagree.  This puts us at the level of unreasonable creatures like amoebas.   Creatures that only react to hot or cold; food or no food; money or no money (in our case).

[PIK]

I am sick of hearing about it. A little snow in NOV and people are freaking out about CC. 

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, PIK said:

I am sick of hearing about it. A little snow in NOV and people are freaking out about CC. 

Don't listen to it then. You've had no problem ignoring CC up until now....how hard can it be?

I mean, we pumped more CO2 into the atmosphere this year than last and the plan is to keep repeating the feat.  Your side is winning. You should be happy not sick. 

[Army Guy]

On 11/11/2019 at 8:26 PM, Cannucklehead said:

Canada has 14 refineries, the largest is in New Brunswick.  I think you may have been misinformed.  

Yes but how many can process Alberta bitumen ? the Irving refinery would have to under go a massive upgrade to process this oil...don't get me wrong NB would love to have that pipe line , and the upgrades , but Quebec is not going to play ball, because there is nothing in it for them...and some how they've all changed into environmentalists over night...

[jacee]

It will be interesting to see if lawsuits against oil companies are launched in Canada. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/exxon-shell-climate-change-court-new-york-attorney-general-litigation-documents-1.5331228

What Big Oil knew and when 

The essential argument for most of the lawsuits is that the oil industry knew that its products were affecting the climate, but instead of alerting the public and changing their business model, companies deliberately promoted scientific uncertainty about climate change to delay laws that might limit carbon emissions. 

For evidence, many of the cases rely on a series of internal company documents uncovered by investigative journalists that suggest oil industry scientists and executives were aware, decades ago, that fossil fuel emissions were changing the world's climate.

Municipalities seem to be taking the lead on this, perhaps forming a class action suit.

Climate change effects of the fossil fuel industries are a reality, and prevention and mitigation of those effects are our reality for the rest of our lives, for sure, and the lives of the next generations. 

In Canada, it is of great concern that 75% of our GHG emissions are caused by two fossil fuel provinces - Alberta and Saskatchewan. Perhaps municipalities' lawsuits should be directed at those provinces along with oil companies. And I would suggest suing the Federal government's as well, for continuing to prop up the failing and unprofitable oil industry with public subsidies ($60b/year), while municipalities incur the losses and costs of climate change that result from emissions. 

The success of such lawsuits doesn't matter as much as the pressure it puts on the feds to stop subsidizing those damaging industries with our money: removing just 30% of those subsidies would allow the energy market to operate freely, and renewable energy would immediately be a more profitable investment than fossil fuels. 

It's a simple change that will accomplish a lot, and very quickly, by allowing the 'free market' to actually operate freely, without propping up a dying and damaging industry. 

Subsidy money should, instead, be directed at helping Alberta and Saskatchewan develop other industries without dependence on oil, and helping workers transition to new industries: Those dependent provinces can still get the federal money, but only to create a new economy and employ people.

Public subsidy money is now being thrown down the drain, will be used to finance company shareholders and executive payouts when companies go bankrupt and abandon their operations and their workers. Oil companies have no loyalty to the people of Alberta or Saskatchewan and will abandon them in a second.

It will be Canadians who subsidize the necessary economic changes to keep those provinces afloat and viable. There isn't any point in arguing about it, just demand that our federal public subsidy money be used for new industries, new employment ... not thrown away propping up an industry that is no longer viable. 

Edited November 21, 2019 by jacee

[SpankyMcFarland]

The fact that the Chisholm fire of 2001, a significant event in global megafire history, is not better known in Canada says a lot about our real level of collective concern for climate change:

Quote

The last time we’ve seen anything like this was the Chisholm fire, which is the most intense fire that we have recorded in the fire record, not just for Alberta, but for Canada and for the world,” says University of Alberta wildfire specialist Mike Flannigan. 

The 2001 wildfire that went through the central Alberta hamlet of Chisholm burned at 233,000 kilowatts per metre, Flannigan says. At the 2011 Slave Lake fire, the heat was 33,000 kilowatts per metre. For context, if a fire is burning at 10,000 kilowatts per metre, it’s generally deemed that aircraft water bombing is less — or no longer — effective. 

The Beast is what regional fire chief Darby Allen calls the Fort McMurray fire, and it might well be that the Fort McMurray fire is burning as hot as Chisholm, an issue that Flannigan and his team will soon investigate. The two fires already share one other indicator of unprecedented intensity, with both fires producing pyro cumulonimbus clouds, thunder and lightning storms generated by the fire’s smoke column. 

https://edmontonjournal.com/news/insigh ... to-explode

 

 

[Shady]

On 11/18/2019 at 5:28 PM, eyeball said:

Don't listen to it then. You've had no problem ignoring CC up until now....how hard can it be?

I mean, we pumped more CO2 into the atmosphere this year than last and the plan is to keep repeating the feat.  Your side is winning. You should be happy not sick. 

Then talk to China and India.  They're the worst ones.  And under the Paris accord, they have until 2030 to start cutting.  And even that isn't binding.  

[eyeball]

13 minutes ago, Shady said:

Then talk to China and India.  They're the worst ones. 

Which is why we shouldn't sell it to them. We're no better if we do.

[Shady]

28 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Which is why we shouldn't sell it to them. We're no better if we do.

Sell what to them?

[SpankyMcFarland]

3 hours ago, Shady said:

Then talk to China and India.  They're the worst ones.  And under the Paris accord, they have until 2030 to start cutting.  And even that isn't binding.  

What about the US at number 2? The West has been pumping excess greenhouse gases upwards for over two centuries. India’s per capita output is modest. South Park will have to do a new song, ‘Blame India’. 

Edited November 21, 2019 by SpankyMcFarland

[Shady]

5 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

What about the US at number 2? The West has been pumping excess greenhouse gases upwards for over two centuries. India’s per capita output is modest. South Park will have to do a new song, ‘Blame India’. 

What happened 200 years ago doesn’t really matter when it comes to solving the problem now.  China is by far the worst, and is permitted to continue to grow emissions until 2030.  How will the problem be solved before China is part of the solution.  Same with India, as their emissions are also allowed to grow until 2030.

[SpankyMcFarland]

Two key components are per capita output and population size. I don’t think anyone can accuse the PRC of not taking population growth seriously. In South Asia, results have been much less impressive, with Bangladesh, of all places, managing the best reduction. Sub-Saharan Africa is a big worry in this regard. Empowerment of women may be one of the most effective measures in cutting family size. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

7 minutes ago, Shady said:

What happened 200 years ago doesn’t really matter when it comes to solving the problem now.  China is by far the worst, and is permitted to continue to grow emissions until 2030.  How will the problem be solved before China is part of the solution.  Same with India, as their emissions are also allowed to grow until 2030.

We hear about taking responsibility for one’s actions from the right all the time. At least acknowledge what has happened and what we have already done before blaming others. 

As somebody who lives in an oil-producing province, I’m not saying we should abandon oil but let’s come up with some decent arguments. 

 

Edited November 21, 2019 by SpankyMcFarland

[Argus]

3 hours ago, Shady said:

Then talk to China and India.  They're the worst ones.  And under the Paris accord, they have until 2030 to start cutting.  And even that isn't binding.  

They're also setting themselves up so they can cut a lot to meet any new agreements, by building all these new coal plants. It will be fairly easy to convert them to natural gas at some point in the future and have a big reduction in CO2. If they built them as natural gas plants now it would be much harder to show how they've cut back after 2030.

[Argus]

23 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

What about the US at number 2? The West has been pumping excess greenhouse gases upwards for over two centuries. India’s per capita output is modest. South Park will have to do a new song, ‘Blame India’. 

The third world is responsible for 2/3rds of CO2 emissions, and almost all the increase is coming from the third world. What you seem to be wanting us to do is if feel guilt over having developed ahead of them. That's not going to happen.