Do You Believe in Man-Made Climate Change?

[Michael Hardner]

7 hours ago, eyeball said:

In any case if China and India aren't pulling their weight ...

They are more committed to Paris than the US is now...

[Shady]

8 hours ago, eyeball said:

Can you imagine the screaming you'd have been be engaged in if our puny capacity to contribute to the cause was cited as an excuse for not fighting Hitler?

In any case if China and India aren't pulling their weight we have no business selling them the means to to pull it even less. Speaking of tyrants no one seems to be very keen on addressing how it is after sacrificing trillions of dollars and millions of lives trying to keep oil out of the hands of communist dictatorships people can't get it into their hands fast enough.  What's with that anyway?

Lol @ Hitler.  Regardless, we are doing something regarding emissions.  China’s doing the exact opposite.  Can you imagine if Hitler invading Europe was told to be an urgent issue, but then had countries promising to help 10 years in the future!    Like I’ve already said, we could reduce our emissions to ZERO.  But it’ll make no difference while China continues to build new coal power plants and significantly increase their emissions.  Take it up with China.  Until then, STFU.

[OftenWrong]

I read US reduced its carbon output more significantly than any other. If that’s true, it is done sans the blessed Paris.

[Shady]

32 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

They are more committed to Paris than the US is now...

Um, the United States is leading the world in emissions reductions, what in the world (pun intended) are you talking about?  They’re way a head of and Paris Accord participant.  Participation trophies don’t cut emissions.

Edited February 19, 2020 by Shady

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, Shady said:

what in the world (pun intended) are you talking about? 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_the_Paris_Agreement

[Michael Hardner]

BTW I would think after repeated false facts, you would reconsider the source.  I did that with the public policy forum a few years' back you know.

[Guest]

9 hours ago, eyeball said:

Can you imagine the screaming you'd have been be engaged in if our puny capacity to contribute to the cause was cited as an excuse for not fighting Hitler?

In any case if China and India aren't pulling their weight we have no business selling them the means to to pull it even less. Speaking of tyrants no one seems to be very keen on addressing how it is after sacrificing trillions of dollars and millions of lives trying to keep oil out of the hands of communist dictatorships people can't get it into their hands fast enough.  What's with that anyway?

If the world were to pull together the way it did to fight Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, and the way Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan did to fight the world, (but on the same side this time) and they had done so twenty or so years ago, we might have made a dent.

As it stands now, I can't imagine the world putting up with the privation required to make the same concerted effort.  Not given the pathetic afforts made so far.

Let's face it, we have people right now preventing a product that would actually help from reaching China.  It might not help a lot, but it would certainly help more than me going vegetarian, or you taking the bus.

[Shady]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

BTW I would think after repeated false facts, you would reconsider the source.  I did that with the public policy forum a few years' back you know.

I agree.  Stop repeating false facts, and start repeating current, true facts.

Yes, The U.S. Leads All Countries In Reducing Carbon Emissions

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/10/24/yes-the-u-s-leads-all-countries-in-reducing-carbon-emissions/#25afd3353558

[Shady]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_the_Paris_Agreement

The United States saw the largest decline in energy-related CO₂ emissions in 2019 on a country basis – a fall of 140 Mt, or 2.9%, to 4.8 Gt. US emissions are now down almost 1 Gt from their peak in the year 2000, the largest absolute decline by any country over that period.

https://www.iea.org/articles/global-co2-emissions-in-2019

[Shady]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

BTW I would think after repeated false facts, you would reconsider the source.  I did that with the public policy forum a few years' back you know.

China committed in the 2015 Paris Agreement—an international treaty which nearly 200 other countries also signed—to reach peak carbon emissions around 2030

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/planetpolicy/2018/09/12/chinas-peaking-emissions-and-the-future-of-global-climate-policy/

 

[Shady]

It's too bad that the countries signed on to the Paris Accord couldn't reduce emissions as efficiently as the United States.  Unfortunately, the Paris Accord is mostly symbolism over substance.

 

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, Shady said:

Lol @ Hitler.  Regardless, we are doing something regarding emissions.  China’s doing the exact opposite.  Can you imagine if Hitler invading Europe was told to be an urgent issue, but then had countries promising to help 10 years in the future!    Like I’ve already said, we could reduce our emissions to ZERO.  But it’ll make no difference while China continues to build new coal power plants and significantly increase their emissions.  Take it up with China.  Until then, STFU.

Waiting for the future before we do anything is exactly what you're proposing we do. I suspect you would have been a Hitler denier too if you'd had an arms sales contract with him at the time.

Quote

Regardless, we are doing something regarding emissions.

No where near enough according to science.  I'd tell you to STFU too but you're a hard-boiled denier so what are the chances?  Hence the need to blockade.

Edited February 19, 2020 by eyeball

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

I read US reduced its carbon output more significantly than any other. If that’s true, it is done sans the blessed Paris.

It is true and it was done sans the federal government at the state and city level.

Act local think global...sorta like a lot of activists at blockades do. 

[Shady]

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Waiting for the future before we do anything is exactly what you're proposing we do. I suspect you would have been a Hitler denier too if you'd had an arms sales contract with him at the time.

No where near enough according to science.  I'd tell you to STFU too but you're a hard-boiled denier so what are the chances?  Hence the need to blockade.

No, I'm not wanting to wait for the future, I want everyone to participate in the present.  Your way is insisting on waiting for the future.  You want the biggest polluters to wait another 10 years before doing anything.  It's completely pathetic, and won't solve anything.

[Shady]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

It is true and it was done sans the federal government at the state and city level.

Act local think global...sorta like a lot of activists at blockades do. 

Yep, the United States has done a better job at reducing emissions than any other country in the world.  Perhaps you and they should take a lesson from them.

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, Shady said:

China committed in the 2015 Paris Agreement—an international treaty which nearly 200 other countries also signed—to reach peak carbon emissions around 2030

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/planetpolicy/2018/09/12/chinas-peaking-emissions-and-the-future-of-global-climate-policy/

 

Well the EU outperformed the US, though the EU isn't a single country.  It would be interesting to see emission reductions by country in Europe.  It's also important to know the baseline emissions per capita, as some countries have substantially lower emissions per capita than the US.  Canada has always been a high emissions per capita country due to our cold temperatures and massive distances for transport.  However, the emissions are spread out over a huge land mass, so carbon sinks (forests and underwater plants) play an important role in absorption of CO2.  The worst-case scenario is high emissions per capita in high population density countries with small canopies/underwater plants.  Also, big emitters can show large declines in emissions yet remain high emitters. 

Edited February 19, 2020 by Zeitgeist

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, bcsapper said:

If the world were to pull together the way it did to fight Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, and the way Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan did to fight the world, (but on the same side this time) and they had done so twenty or so years ago, we might have made a dent.

As it stands now, I can't imagine the world putting up with the privation required to make the same concerted effort.  Not given the pathetic afforts made so far.

As I pointed out above much of the world is pulling together by acting locally which sometimes includes blockades.

Quote

Let's face it, we have people right now preventing a product that would actually help from reaching China.  It might not help a lot, but it would certainly help more than me going vegetarian, or you taking the bus.

It won't help enough, the means of producing natural gas is anything but natural and besides which the bigger goal at the moment as I see it is establishing indigenous political sovereignty.  Erecting that hurdle will be very important when push comes to shove against the development of future fossil fuel sources/infrastructure.    

[Zeitgeist]

20 minutes ago, eyeball said:

As I pointed out above much of the world is pulling together by acting locally which sometimes includes blockades.

It won't help enough, the means of producing natural gas is anything but natural and besides which the bigger goal at the moment as I see it is establishing indigenous political sovereignty.  Erecting that hurdle will be very important when push comes to shove against the development of future fossil fuel sources/infrastructure.    

Natural gas exists in pockets underground.  It is relatively clean burning and plentiful.  It's a good energy source, certainly better than coal or oil.

Be careful what you wish for with "Indigenous Sovereignty".  It's defining territory by race, and membership of that race gives privilege (untaxed free land, no income taxes, free education and health care, big infusions of money from Canadian taxpayers outside the Indigenous territory, undisclosed benefits from resource development, and a big kick in the teeth to essential resource infrastructure for all peoples within Canada).  We should oppose all forms of "Indigenous Sovereignty", which is simply the pure race-based state living parasitically from taxpayers in another state.  It is unsustainable as an independent territory/country unless it is truly independent of all outside economic support.  The continued "Indigenous Sovereignty" movement is a con that will bankrupt Canada if not very carefully handled by the courts. 

Edited February 19, 2020 by Zeitgeist

[eyeball]

8 minutes ago, Shady said:

No, I'm not wanting to wait for the future, I want everyone to participate in the present.  Your way is insisting on waiting for the future.  You want the biggest polluters to wait another 10 years before doing anything.  It's completely pathetic, and won't solve anything.

No I've made it very clear we should not be shipping fossil fuels to the biggest polluters, and especially the dictatorships, and further to that we should be placing sanctions on countries that do, again especially the dictatorships.

25% of their GDP to fight tyranny and its disgraceful how much of our GDP now relies on doing business with dictators.

I repeat, no one seems to be very keen on addressing how it is after sacrificing trillions of dollars and millions of lives trying to keep oil out of the hands of communist dictatorships people can't get it into their hands fast enough.  What's with that anyway?

[eyeball]

6 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Natural gas exists in pockets underground.  It is relatively clean burning and plentiful.  It's a good energy source, certainly better than coal or oil.

Key word being relatively. Natural gas has lot's of issues and is not the panacea implied by its name.

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/environmental-impacts-natural-gas

I respectfully submit that not fuelling the growth of the most dangerous dictatorship on the planet should be a key aspect of our decision to leave it in the ground as well.  I just wish people would start blockading BC's coal shipments to China.

Edited February 19, 2020 by eyeball

[eyeball]

36 minutes ago, Shady said:

Yep, the United States has done a better job at reducing emissions than any other country in the world. 

Yeah...it's more like states united in common cause though, big fossil fuel interests and big governments are deadbeats content to leave action up to everyone else while riding on their coat-tails. You mentioned something about government lap-dogs to me the other day recall that?

Quote

Perhaps you and they should take a lesson from them.

I am. I've made lots of changes around here. I've added more insulation to my home, swapped out old inefficient heaters and appliances, our next car will be electric, we're installing a charging station for our rental guests and I work for a company in an industry that is very conscious of its carbon footprint.  

Edited February 19, 2020 by eyeball

[Shady]

Just now, eyeball said:

Yeah...it's more like the states united though, big fossil fuel interests and big governments are deadbeats content to leave action up to everyone else while riding on their coat-tails. You mentioned something about government lap-dogs to me the other day recall that?

I am. I've made lots of changes around here. I've added more insulation to my home, swapped out old inefficient heaters and appliances, our next car will be electric, we're installing a charging station for our rental guests and I work for a company in an industry that is very conscious of its carbon footprint.  

So what if it's the states?  Are you interested in reducing emissions, or more interested in some other political point?  The fact is, it's more efficient to do it at state and local levels.  But so what?  I know that you prefer an authoritarian state to impose it's power, but that's not always what works best. 

[eyeball]

23 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Be careful what you wish for with "Indigenous Sovereignty".  It's defining territory by race, and membership of that race gives privilege (untaxed free land, no income taxes, free education and health care, big infusions of money from Canadian taxpayers outside the Indigenous territory, undisclosed benefits from resource development, and a big kick in the teeth to essential resource infrastructure for all peoples within Canada).  We should oppose all forms of "Indigenous Sovereignty", which is simply the pure race-based state living parasitically from taxpayers in another state.  It is unsustainable as an independent territory/country unless it is truly independent of all outside economic support.  The continued "Indigenous Sovereignty" movement is a con that will bankrupt Canada if not very carefully handled by the courts. 

You don't have a clue what you're talking about.  It's defining territory by law and negotiation.  I'm surrounded by and live and work in treaty lands every day.  Treaty settlements are the biggest economic driver in my region.

[eyeball]

7 minutes ago, Shady said:

Are you interested in reducing emissions, or more interested in some other political point?

I'm definitely interested in the point of not fuelling the growth of the most dangerous communist dictatorship on the planet, why aren't you?

Again and again I ask the question that no one seems to have an answer for. Maybe some big Betsy like fonts will help...

How it is after sacrificing trillions of dollars and millions of lives trying to keep oil out of the hands of communist dictatorships people can't get it into their hands fast enough?  What's with that anyway?

Edited February 19, 2020 by eyeball

[Shady]

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I'm definitely interested in the point of not fuelling the growth of the most dangerous communist dictatorship on the planet, why aren't you?

Again and again I ask the question that no one seems to have an answer for. Maybe some big Betsy like fonts will help...

How it is after sacrificing trillions of dollars and millions of lives trying to keep oil out of the hands of communist dictatorships people can't get it into their hands fast enough?  What's with that anyway?

When were trillions of dollars and millions of lives sacrificed to keep oil out of the hands of communists?  Is this some alternate history you're living in?  Regardless, getting oil to market means anyone can purchase it.  Communists and non-communists alike.  Besides, communists these days tend to be more and more capitalist as time goes by.