Burn, baby, Burn

[cougar]

5 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

you work with an imaginary perfect standard that will never be met

 

Did you ever try to grasp what I was telling you in my two posts above???

Forget about perfect, better, good or whatever you call it.

The point is :   IT DOES NOT WORK !    It does not achieve the main objective it has - to protect the environment and all other species.

From this point on, there is nothing to talk about.

[Yzermandius19]

7 minutes ago, cougar said:

Did you ever try to grasp what I was telling you in my two posts above???

Forget about perfect, better, good or whatever you call it.

The point is :   IT DOES NOT WORK !    It does not achieve the main objective it has - to protect the environment and all other species.

From this point on, there is nothing to talk about.

It comes closer to that standard than others by a wide margin

so why not criticize those who are the furthest from the standard, instead of raging about those closest to the standard and ignoring everyone else?

your bar is too high

of course everyone comes up short of it, this is not insightful observation on you part, I grasp your silly point, it is you who does not grasp mine

perfect is the enemy of good

Edited September 6, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[cougar]

Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

It comes closer to that standard than anyone else

 

What standard?  Again I am telling you, you have a disfunctional system that does not work.  Fix it!

For all that has been happening, it has been going the opposite way - getting more disfunctional and closer to what the banana republics have in place.  It happens in giant steps under a conservative government and in smaller steps under a liberal government.

Why would I be criticizing the system of another country?  To evade accountability, avoid dealing with the actual problem and distract the public, sending them on a wild goose chase????

 

[Yzermandius19]

22 minutes ago, cougar said:

What standard?  Again I am telling you, you have a disfunctional system that does not work.  Fix it!

For all that has been happening, it has been going the opposite way - getting more disfunctional and closer to what the banana republics have in place.  It happens in giant steps under a conservative government and in smaller steps under a liberal government.

Why would I be criticizing the system of another country?  To evade accountability, avoid dealing with the actual problem and distract the public, sending them on a wild goose chase????

it's been constantly getting better, not going the opposite way

humans were far more rapacious of the environment in the past than today

the wealthier we get, the better we take care of the environment

the historical record is quite clear, your feelings do no match reality

Edited September 6, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[cougar]

18 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

it's been constantly getting better, not going the opposite way

the historical record is quite clear, your feelings do no match reality

Of course it has been going the opposite way; Harper is a prime example.

What historical record?  That of the endangered species, or the species that disappeared?  The historical record of forests that were clear cut?  The historical record of land that has been converted for urban use or roads, railways and highways?

You see the "REALITY" every day.  If the heat, hurricanes, droughts, floods, fires and disappearing wildlife is not real enough for you, I cannot help you.

You are so out for lunch that any further discussion would be pointless.

[Yzermandius19]

45 minutes ago, cougar said:

You are so out for lunch that any further discussion would be pointless.

projection is a helluva drug

[myata]

Approaching Vancouver by plane from the eastern direction, the extent of deforestation is obvious; the terrain is uneven many hills, ranges and valleys; and not a singe little hill is left unscathed with wide swaths of clearcuts with small islands of forest in between.

Are mudslides and floods related to deforestation? How common are they in the natural environment? Are we going to play blind, deaf and dumb again and again hoping to squeeze by the nature just another time, somehow?

Edited November 18, 2021 by myata

[Army Guy]

On 8/17/2021 at 2:10 PM, Boges said:

That's the point. 

They kind of need to leap frog that portion of development for this to work. They'll need the first world's help. 

Leap frog into what exactly solar and wind, which has already been proven those two items alone will not provide all of our energy needs, the left is not keen on nuclear energy, which takes to long to build anyways. so if not coal or fossil fuels

what are we all going to leap frog into ? ... there is a knife to our throats right now, world powers want to transition to the next thing right now... and they are being pressured by the voters themselves with more than 80% of the population truly believing that if we suffer now the next generation will not have to and the world will be saved....... what they have not really thought of is transition to what, wood stoves, bicycles, and foot wear... once we get there , the cell phone generation is going to find out hey where is my phone and what are these feet used for again.... 

[cougar]

6 hours ago, myata said:

Are mudslides and floods related to deforestation? How common are they in the natural environment? Are we going to play blind, deaf and std again and again hoping to squeeze by the nature just another time, somehow?

They are related in a number of ways and I can tell you my take on it. 

When you have the healthy forest on the slope, you have those big trees, 30-40 meters tall that create a shield from the sun, as well as a water absorbent pad exactly that thick.

When it rains, water is accumulated in the tree canopy, in the undergrowth, in the moss underneath and finally in the soil.  Since you have the thick shady shield that provides protection, evaporation is slowed down, water run off is slowed down.  All water is slowly released over a longer period of time and feeds the streams and rivers more or less evenly through the year.

But then you have our Climate Expert #3, the logger with 43 year experience, who will go and clear cut the forest.

You no longer have this water reservoir which held and released the water gradually over time.  What you have is the soil only, which gets dried up by the sun directly hitting it, because it is exposed.   It turns to dust.  Then the rain comes and the water has nowhere to accumulate.  It quickly saturates the soil, which has been so dry for a long time and starts to dissolve and wash out.  Then the water goes straight into the first creek, or river and you have a muddy flood taking down trees with it, eventually you have land slides.

The flood is a disaster for everything - not just us, the idiotic humans.  All fish eggs are washed out, productive soils are removed and gone, slopes are destroyed forever , so it will now take ages ,if not thousands of years to get the same level of nutrients deposited, and some balance achieved.  Wildlife suffer with their food sources wiped out.  It goes on and on.

To repeat the point; instead of having even slow water release cycles - smaller amounts of water evaporating and coming down in the form of rain, you now have only peaks and lows, because the system we created releases all water right away, and the whole amount comes down again in a torrent, or the whole amount is totally missing and creates a drought. 

The huge amounts of CO2 we are pumping into the atmosphere have changed its properties.  Now the sun rays hit harder and dry things faster, which aggravates the first problem with the missing forests.  It is a wicked vicious circle we have put ourselves into and I have no idea how we get out of it now.

Does it all look somewhat  similar to what we observe today?

But there are always these experts #1 , #2, #3 ...#1,356,897    Experts never end and you cannot teach them nothing.

Edited November 18, 2021 by cougar

[Nefarious Banana]

8 hours ago, myata said:

Approaching Vancouver by plane from the eastern direction, the extent of deforestation is obvious; the terrain is uneven many hills, ranges and valleys; and not a singe little hill is left unscathed with wide swaths of clearcuts with small islands of forest in between.

Are mudslides and floods related to deforestation? How common are they in the natural environment? Are we going to play blind, deaf and std again and again hoping to squeeze by the nature just another time, somehow?

Some steep slopes should never be logged. Even un-logged slopes sometimes slip with the extended heavy rainfall, Nothing is static in the forest industry.  The new-age RPF's think fire shouldn't be part of the equation and the stabilizing fireweed just doesn't come in heavy or soon enough to shield the replanted trees.

There are mistakes made in the forest industry as there are in any resource industry. 

[Boges]

14 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Leap frog into what exactly solar and wind, which has already been proven those two items alone will not provide all of our energy needs, the left is not keen on nuclear energy, which takes to long to build anyways. so if not coal or fossil fuels

what are we all going to leap frog into ? ... there is a knife to our throats right now, world powers want to transition to the next thing right now... and they are being pressured by the voters themselves with more than 80% of the population truly believing that if we suffer now the next generation will not have to and the world will be saved....... what they have not really thought of is transition to what, wood stoves, bicycles, and foot wear... once we get there , the cell phone generation is going to find out hey where is my phone and what are these feet used for again.... 

Leap frog Coal, I suppose. 

LNG is a good transition until we figure out broad nuclear or if renewables can actually meet needs. 

The problem with renewables isn't generation, it's transmission and storage. 

You see in Maine, they voted to cancel a Green Power project from Quebec because they didn't want the powerlines built. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/maine-vote-hydro-quebec-1.6233569

[myata]

11 hours ago, cougar said:

But there are always these experts #1 , #2, #3 ...#1,356,897    Experts never end and you cannot teach them nothing.

The idea is simple: jobs, mouths to feed, fill the pocket now till it bursts and a bit more, mansion, boat, private plane and the future will take care of itself. That is probably why we haven't had much luck in meeting spacefaring extraterrestrial intelligence.

[myata]

8 hours ago, Nefarious Banana said:

There are mistakes made in the forest industry as there are in any resource industry.

Time to think was a hundred or two years back. This is how long it will take to fix the problems that were created by greedy and brainless logging back then. And do we have this time? Of course, it's all about China and India.

[Army Guy]

5 hours ago, Boges said:

Leap frog Coal, I suppose. 

LNG is a good transition until we figure out broad nuclear or if renewables can actually meet needs. 

The problem with renewables isn't generation, it's transmission and storage. 

You see in Maine, they voted to cancel a Green Power project from Quebec because they didn't want the powerlines built. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/maine-vote-hydro-quebec-1.6233569

transitioning away from coal would be a good start , but it is like oil and gas , one of Canada's largest industries, it puts a lot of food on a lot of plates. LNG is a much better fossil fuel, but it has it's draw backs as well it is expensive as heck, and here in NB, most of our LNG comes from Nova Scotia...second the climate change fanatics are not going to swallow LNG , they don't even like nuclear. that is some of the problem with the climate change group they have some very fanatical members that are not going to be happy until we are in the dark, riding bicycles. 

It seems we are turning to electrical sources to clean up our act , and with the extra draw on todays system there simply is not enough generation as well in large city centers there is not enough generation for a stable power grid. and with out all the infra structure that goes with it as you say transmission and storage  

I guess that kind of puts climate change into focus does it not, here was a way to remove 700,000 cars worth or carbon, and it was voted down, i really don't blame them really 2 foreign companies will be profiting while Maine gets table scraps...Quebec has already burned NFLD bad in the power sharing deal , Quebec tried to offer the same project to the Maritimes, but they declined, and now NFLD will be running cables to the Atlantic provinces for a much better deal.. 

[myata]

I think we'll screw up BC forests and salmon the same way as Ontario forests, cod fishing, Great lakes and so on. To the loud environmentally green muzak and healthy shareholder profits, as usual. Well on our way there and just give it few decades. Do you see any reason why it couldn't and won't be done, by us?

[Nefarious Banana]

For the most part, the forest management of second growth is working pretty well . . . it just needs to return to slash burning to reduce the accumulated fuel on the ground.  This also accelerates the growth of fireweed which has a stabilizing effect, and provides the needed shade for just planted seedlings.  Tree planting is done faster and more complete without the debris on the ground.  Fireweed invites birds, bears, bees, and other creatures whereas unburned slash is a moonscape for three or more years with no birds or wildlife.

Salmon farming has ruined the native salmon runs . . . . 

 

[myata]

Yeah let's try another experiment! We sure have those centuries and millennia to spare.

[Nefarious Banana]

18 minutes ago, myata said:

Yeah let's try another experiment! We sure have those centuries and millennia to spare.

What experiment are you referring to?

[myata]

Cut and burn, stash the cash in all pockets right now mouths and shareholders couldn't wait but better and more environmentally friendly. In short, the same old experiment.

[Nefarious Banana]

2 minutes ago, myata said:

Cut and burn, stash the cash in all pockets right now mouths and shareholders couldn't wait but better and more environmentally friendly. In short, the same old experiment.

Logging costs are huge. Outlays of big money for equipment and labour, and it's somewhat seasonal.  Why shouldn't a contractor expect some return on his investment when he's taking all the risks? 

There's second growth Douglas fir that's close to five feet on the butt here on the coast.  Many folks confuse this with first growth.  

[Michael Hardner]

On 11/18/2021 at 8:50 AM, Boges said:

 The problem with renewables isn't generation, it's transmission and storage. 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16184-x

I wish there were an authoritative source we could use to track these things.  I'm not posting the Nature article because it is that, at least not for the wide public, but it is widely read and well-regarded.

 

Quote

 if cost trends for renewables continue, 62% of China’s electricity could come from non-fossil sources by 2030 at a cost that is 11% lower than achieved through a business-as-usual approach. 

 

[myata]

1 hour ago, Nefarious Banana said:

Logging costs are huge. Outlays of big money for equipment and labour, and it's somewhat seasonal.  Why shouldn't a contractor expect some return on his investment when he's taking all the risks? 

The results of these sustainable as they called, practices, can be seen from the air. What is the rate of deforestation, and I don't mean flat land as of now, 50? Will it get better, with the same practice, or worse? What will it do to the climate and management of weather events? We want to find solutions without changing much what we do. But is it going to work? How can one increase production, year on year and have more of a forest? No, mathematical impossibility one will have to give. And not like we don't know which one.

[Nefarious Banana]

Wood fiber and lumber production is a renewable resource . . . . why shouldn't it be utilized to provide foreign and domestic markets that want, and pay big dollars for our forest products?   Many of the services that we enjoy and take for granted in BC and the rest of the country come from our bountiful resources. Bonus:  this one is renewable, use it to its full extent.

[myata]

"Renewable" does not mean infinite, or exploitable without reason or measure. Are salmon resources still "renewable" as cod was in the first half of the last century? Are we learning anything?

The federal government announced on Tuesday significant measures to shut down a number of Pacific commercial fisheries and First Nations communal commercial fisheries as the salmon stock has “reached a crisis.” From crisis to crisis what a renewable march.

Edited November 19, 2021 by myata

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

 if cost trends for renewables continue, 62% of China’s electricity could come from non-fossil sources by 2030 at a cost that is 11% lower than achieved through a business-as-usual approach. 

That sounds really hard to believe, considering how many coal-fired plants they currently have and how many they're planning to build. Coal currently produces over 55% of China's electricity. 

 

Quote

 

In 2019, coal made up 57.7 percent of China's energy use. Since 2011, China has consumed more coal than the rest of the world combined. China's industrial sector is by far the largest consumer of coal.

 

How Is China's Energy Footprint Changing? - ChinaPower ...

 

 

How much new electricity are they going to produce if coal is only going to be 38% of it? 

Quote

Mainland China has the greatest number of coal-fired power stations of any nation in the world. As of 2021, there were 1,082 operational coal power plants in the country. This was nearly four times the number of such power stations in India, which ranked second.

And that number is set to go up, not down:

https://time.com/6090732/china-coal-power-plants-emissions/

Quote

China is planning to build 43 new coal-fired power plants and 18 new blast furnaces — equivalent to adding about 1.5% to its current annual emissions — according to a new report. The new projects were announced in the first half of this year despite the world’s largest polluter pledging to bring its emissions to a peak before 2030, and to make the country carbon neutral by 2060.

If China isn't shutting down any existing plants while they're building the new ones, they could have as many as 1,125 coal-fired plants. Would that really just be 38% of their total power? 

In any event, 1,100+ coal-fired plants is a lot. Alberta had 4 or 5 and they 'had to' shut them down to save the environment. It's not killing the coal mining though, they're still working because....... that coal is getting shipped all the way to China to be burned now. SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT!!!! ?