Virtuous Canada will not allow more coal mines

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

This has nothing to do with virtue signalling (what ever that is) or whether you "believe" in climate change.

The earth's atmosphere is heating up at an unnatural pace due to human action. The level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere regulates re-radiation of heat. Belief has no bearing on that. It is a simple fact. If we do not reverse global warming, you may as well throw future generations on the barbecue. 

Our best way to avoid an apocalypse is to transition to nuclear power and preserve our coal, iron ore and oil for the future. We only have enough uranium for about a century, but we need that time to get thorium on line and develop a viable fusion generation system. 

We can build CANDU's and small modular reactors for use all over the world. Then no one will be saying the developing world needs to burn coal. Coal and oil are far too valuable to burn.

Right.  You would imagine that all those who believe in climate change would jump on those ideas.  How come they don't?

[Argus]

14 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

This has nothing to do with virtue signalling (what ever that is) or whether you "believe" in climate change.

The earth's atmosphere is heating up at an unnatural pace due to human action. The level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere regulates re-radiation of heat. Belief has no bearing on that. It is a simple fact. If we do not reverse global warming, you may as well throw future generations on the barbecue. 

That's simply not true. The IPCC's prediction of what will result in the year 2100 is a very small impact on northern countries like Canada, and a greater impact on those nearest the equator.  But there won't be an 'apocalypse'. Further, the temperature rise is unstoppable in the near future. There is a forty year gap between when we do something and its impact on the climate. That means nothing we do today will even be noticeable until 2065

And what we're doing today is increasing our carbon release, not decreasing it. The developing world is building hundreds of coal fired power plants, buying more cars, and building more factories. Canada piously refusing to mine coal won't do a bloody thing.

14 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

We can build CANDU's and small modular reactors for use all over the world. Then no one will be saying the developing world needs to burn coal. Coal and oil are far too valuable to burn.

The government has no interest in building nuclear reactors. I agree with you that the only medium term way to bring down carbon release is nuclear, but the environmental groups are dead set against it. 

Sometime in the next fifty years we'll probably have fusion power. That is going to be a game changer. And once that's on-line governments will race to transition to it and fossil fuel use will plummet. Until then, there's very little we can do. Especially since the third world, who will be impacted the worst, are continuing to expand their carbon footprints.

[myata]

3 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Practically speaking, based on the evidence up to now, climate change is unstoppable.  That might change as effects worsen, but really, who among the decision makers has taken it seriously?  Another conference?  That'll do the trick.

Quite possibly humanity finally created the stone it could not lift. And it wasn't even that hard - just burn, burn, burn happily and thoughtlessly till you get to the end of the lawn. And then, when nothing's left to burn who's to blame, West or East would it even matter?

Edited June 13, 2021 by myata

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, myata said:

Quite possibly humanity finally created the stone it could not lift. And it wasn't even that hard - just burn, burn, burn happily and thoughtlessly till you get to the end of the lawn. And then, when nothing's left to burn who's to blame, West or East would it even matter?

It's a natural function of population growth to use up the resources.  The effects of such use were not known until it was too late to do anything about it.  If the first person who figured out an industrial process went better with coal knew what we know now, maybe things would have been different.  Actually, he was human, so it wouldn't have made any difference.

As a species, we are not special and have no more right to the planet than do termites.  There's no reason we can't screw it up.

 

[Guest]

The Swiss just said no, in a national referendum, to a law restricting CO2 emissions.

The first person to come with a translation for "I'm alright, Jack" in any of the official languages of Switzerland will win a cuckoo clock.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57457384

[myata]

That may very well be the reason why we don't find many other humans in the Universe. First burn then think and if it's not yet in full fire can always vote "no" to noticing it. Then, it's late. How could you win?

[Yzermandius19]

the world is not overpopulated

and underpopulation is going to be a bigger issue

than overpopulation in the future

Japan knows

 

various experts have been saying we'll run out of fossil fuels for centuries

and yet we continue discovering more

and making such predictions look stupid

time after time

yet the "experts" keep predicting it over and over again

 

enough with the Malthusian doomsday predictions already

some people are so gullible that no matter how many doomsday predictions are made

some will keep believing it, no matter how times they are made a fool of

Millerites never die, the Climate Apocalypse keeps getting re-scheduled too

enjoy the great disappointment forevermore, true believers

lulz

Edited June 14, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[Moonlight Graham]

3 hours ago, myata said:

That may very well be the reason why we don't find many other humans in the Universe. First burn then think and if it's not yet in full fire can always vote "no" to noticing it. Then, it's late. How could you win?

I guarantee that's not the reason we've never found other humans in the universe.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

the world is not overpopulated

and underpopulation is going to be a bigger issue

than overpopulation in the future

Japan knows

 

various experts have been saying we'll run out of fossil fuels for centuries

and yet we continue discovering more

and making such predictions look stupid

time after time

yet the "experts" keep predicting it over and over again

 

enough with the Malthusian doomsday predictions already

some people are so gullible that no matter how many doomsday predictions are made

some will keep believing it, no matter how times they are made a fool of

Millerites never die, the Climate Apocalypse keeps getting re-scheduled too

enjoy the great disappointment forevermore, true believer

 

Of course the world is overpopulated.  You don't need some 18th century scholar to confirm it for you. Just ask the arable land and the oceans.  Check with the forests and the atmosphere. 

Just because we've built an economic system based on a pyramid scheme doesn't mean we don't have too many people.

Of course, if you're one of those least affected it's easy to shrug it off.

 

[Yzermandius19]

the luddites believe that the climate doom justifies their seizing control of economy

and outlawing the greatest tools of human advancement yet developed

to appease the carbon god

which will impoverish and starve people

but that's okay

because they believe in overpopulation too

burn the village to save the village is the only solution to these clowns

human success is the problem

only once humans are just surviving, if that

and no longer thriving

only then will the environment be pleased with their self-flagellation 

[Yzermandius19]

3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Of course the world is overpopulated.  You don't need some 18th century scholar to confirm it for you. Just ask the arable land and the oceans.  Check with the forests and the atmosphere. 

Just because we've built an economic system based on a pyramid scheme doesn't mean we don't have too many people.

Of course, if you're one of those least affected it's easy to shrug it off.

 

we don't have too many people

the current resources more than support current population levels and then some

and the population isn't going to grow much before leveling off and shrinking

there is no shortage of arable land to feed the population

there are more trees than ever in the last several hundred years

de-forestation is only happening in specific areas, not in general, in general the trend is the opposite

Edited June 14, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[Guest]

Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

we don't have too many

the current resources more than support current population levels

there is no shortage of arable land to feed the population

there are more forests than ever before

Sure, if you like.

[Yzermandius19]

human advancement has developed rapidly

over the last few centuries

because of growing populations

that is coming to end

dealing with the fallout of that

will be a bigger problem

by several orders of magnitude

than overpopulation

 

and if you idiotically believe in overpopulation being some massive problem 

in spite of the facts

good news for you

the population is already started to shrink in many developed nations

and will start to shrink worldwide in the not too distant future

so you are getting what you wish for

even though you should have been more careful what you wished for

the population bomb doomsday prediction was proved wrong

as such overpopulation predictions get proved wrong time and time again throughout history

yet people still keep buying into them because some expert claims the sky is falling

Edited June 14, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[Aristides]

Meanwhile we will continue to ship 10 million tons of US thermal coal per year from Vancouver because US ports won't take it.

[Aristides]

23 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

human advancement has developed rapidly

over the last few centuries

because of growing populations

that is coming to end

dealing with the fallout of that

will be a bigger problem

by several orders of magnitude

than overpopulation

 

and if you idiotically believe in overpopulation being some massive problem 

in spite of the facts

good news for you

the population is already started to shrink in many developed nations

and will start to shrink worldwide in the not too distant future

so you are getting what you wish for

even though you should have been more careful what you wished for

the population bomb doomsday prediction was proved wrong

as such overpopulation predictions get proved wrong time and time again throughout history

yet people still keep buying into them because some expert claims the sky is falling

Growth is slowing but it is still projected to reach 10 billion by 2057 and 10.8 billion by the end of this century. God knows what we will have done to the planet by then

Edited June 14, 2021 by Aristides

[Yzermandius19]

18 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Growth is slowing but it is still projected to reach 10.8 billion by the end of this century. God knows what we will have done to the planet by then

then it will go down

and current carrying capacity can handle 10.8 billion and then some

the environment will likely be better off by then

just as it is better off today than 50 years ago and was better off 50 years ago than 100 years ago

the more civilization thrives, the less damage is done to the environment, the least developed civilizations do the most damage

so if you want to help the environment, preventing them from developing is exactly the wrong way to go about it

only after they lift themselves out of poverty are they going to start worrying about environmental concerns, this is why all biggest environmental movements are in the most developed nations

China and India will care a lot more about the environment, once they become first world nations

getting them to stop polluting now isn't going to work and Canada virtue signaling about it isn't going to move the needle with them either

Edited June 14, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[Aristides]

The world can’t sustain China and and India with standards of living like ours. We are already consuming the earth’s renewable resources at a greater rate than the earth is replacing them.

Studies indicate it would take five earths to produce the resources to give every human the same standard of living as the average American. At present it takes 18 months for the earth to replenish what we consume in a year.

Edited June 14, 2021 by Aristides

[Yzermandius19]

2 hours ago, Aristides said:

The world can’t sustain China and and India with standards of living like ours. We are already consuming the earth’s renewable resources at a greater rate than the earth is replacing them.

Studies indicate it would take five earths to produce the resources to give every human the same standard of living as the average American. At present it takes 18 months for the earth to replenish what we consume in a year.

there are plenty of resources regardless of the current rate of consumption

as technology improves it will consume less resources to produce a high standard of living

China and India will reduce their pollution the wealthier they get

climate doomsday is a myth

[Queenmandy85]

20 hours ago, Argus said:

That's simply not true. The IPCC's prediction of what will result in the year 2100 is a very small impact on northern countries like Canada, and a greater impact on those nearest the equator.  But there won't be an 'apocalypse'. Further, the temperature rise is unstoppable in the near future. There is a forty year gap between when we do something and its impact on the climate. That means nothing we do today will even be noticeable until 2065

The difficulty in addressing global warming is terrible communication of the problem. It is due to a lack of education. I, like many others was allowed to leave school without a solid grounding in Math, Chemistry, Physics and Geography. Hence, the irrational fear of nuclear power and a complete misunderstanding of what is coming at us. We have a responsibility to future generations.

First, people do not understand the timeline. While, it is impossible to determine how soon the effects will appear, we may be looking at another 250 years for the real impact to begin. They talk about the rise in sea level but the problems start getting serious when sea levels begin to drop. By then, the process will have become self-generating. 

I fear we are incapable of making the choices required to change course and a mass extinction event will be on us within a couple of thousand years. Easter Island should have been the warning. We have known about this issue since the 1970's and we have done nothing. Some worry about the economy. What kind of economy will you have when there is no fresh water?

 

[Queenmandy85]

13 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

the world is not overpopulated

In answer to the question what is over population, Quirks and Quarks found the answer to be 1.5 billion was the maximum sustainable population. I would ask Yzermandius how long can we sustain more than 8 billion people?

[Aristides]

2 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

there are plenty of resources regardless of the current rate of consumption

as technology improves it will consume less resources to produce a high standard of living

China and India will reduce their pollution the wealthier they get

climate doomsday is a myth

 

I'm talking about renewable resources, the ones that give us our breathable air and water suitable for drinking and agriculture. We are using them much faster than the earth is replacing them and as we do things like deforesting and destroying our carbon sinks, increasing CO2 levels and acidification of oceans we are further reducing the earth'a ability or reproduce them

[Dougie93]

2 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

climate doomsday is a myth

the doomsday cult of Climate Change

Nietzsche + Malthus = Hitler

the Nazis were the world's first green party after all

death solves all problems, no man, no problem

 

[Yzermandius19]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

In answer to the question what is over population, Quirks and Quarks found the answer to be 1.5 billion was the maximum sustainable population. I would ask Yzermandius how long can we sustain more than 8 billion people?

indefinitely

quirks and quarks doesn't have a clue what is talking about

carrying capacity isn't fixed

technology drives carrying capacity

population growth drives technological growth

that's why Malthus is wrong

Edited June 14, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[Yzermandius19]

55 minutes ago, Aristides said:

 

I'm talking about renewable resources, the ones that give us our breathable air and water suitable for drinking and agriculture. We are using them much faster than the earth is replacing them and as we do things like deforesting and destroying our carbon sinks, increasing CO2 levels and acidification of oceans we are further reducing the earth'a ability or reproduce them

deforestation is not a problem except in specific areas

in general more trees are growing than are being cut down

the more Co2, the more trees

[Queenmandy85]

20 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

deforestation is not a problem except in specific areas

in general more trees are growing than are being cut down

the more Co2, the more trees

What are you basing these statements on?

 

46 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

quirks and quarks doesn't have a clue what is talking about

Please elaborate.