Just how pointless and stupid our climate reductions efforts are

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Aristides said:

Name two rivers that can still be dammed. Even if we did you are talking about flooding millions of hectares of river valleys which are where most of our towns and agriculture are located. Site C will be the last major dam built in BC.

F*ck off with your bullshit.  You asked for proof we have hydro capacity and i gave you a list with MAPS and that STILL wasn't good enough - now you're just sealioning demanding  endlessly that i provide more and more data when I've already proved my point and that you're full of shit.

It'll be 'name a river' then "show me where on that river' then " i want to see the plans for this dam" and so on and so on.

Tell you what - YOU post the proof that there is NOT A SINGLE RIVER THAT COULD BE DAMMED as you claim.  You can't  because it's a lie but you go ahead.

 

BC has tonnes of hydro potential left, more than enough to meet power needs for the next 30 years and beyond as per the documents i've already provided.  And the oil we produce counts to our GHG emissions whether we burn it or not, and that sector is over 25  percent of our supposed 'emissions".

And sorry but there is NOTHING we can do to significantly affect GHG's around the world other than  possibly invent tech that would replace ghg emitting tech currently in use, which means it has to be cheaper and at least as effective.

So at the end of the day, like most of the other  religious 'climate' zealots, you're being dishonest and you're just plain wrong.  And you demand more and more proof of the same thing.  And you wonder why fewer and fewer people are taking this crap seriously - you couldn't even address it honestly in a simple discussion.

 

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

F*ck off with your bullshit.  You asked for proof we have hydro capacity and i gave you a list with MAPS and that STILL wasn't good enough - now you're just sealioning demanding  endlessly that i provide more and more data when I've already proved my point and that you're full of shit.

It'll be 'name a river' then "show me where on that river' then " i want to see the plans for this dam" and so on and so on.

Tell you what - YOU post the proof that there is NOT A SINGLE RIVER THAT COULD BE DAMMED as you claim.  You can't  because it's a lie but you go ahead.

 

BC has tonnes of hydro potential left, more than enough to meet power needs for the next 30 years and beyond as per the documents i've already provided.  And the oil we produce counts to our GHG emissions whether we burn it or not, and that sector is over 25  percent of our supposed 'emissions".

And sorry but there is NOTHING we can do to significantly affect GHG's around the world other than  possibly invent tech that would replace ghg emitting tech currently in use, which means it has to be cheaper and at least as effective.

So at the end of the day, like most of the other  religious 'climate' zealots, you're being dishonest and you're just plain wrong.  And you demand more and more proof of the same thing.  And you wonder why fewer and fewer people are taking this crap seriously - you couldn't even address it honestly in a simple discussion.

 

So you can't name two.

Maybe you should read the document you provided. All of it. By its own admission it comes from data compiled over a couple of hours. They didn't even visit any of the 121 sites they say are economically feasible.

[CdnFox]

14 minutes ago, Aristides said:

So you can't name two.

 

So you're a lying sack of shit.  Well - typical of the 'environmental' types.

Quote

Maybe you should read the document you provided. All of it. By its own admission it comes from data compiled over a couple of hours. They didn't even visit any of the 121 sites they say are economically feasible.

Maybe  YOU should read it. These are experts who know their business and were able to use very advanced tools to achieve the results

Where's that document saying we don't have any more hydro capacity? Hmmm?  Don't have it? Right.

And it still doesn't change the fact that there's nothing canada can do about 'climate change'.

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 8/5/2023 at 11:08 AM, I am Groot said:

The science says there's nothing Canada can do to impact climate change. In fact, at this point there's not much ANYONE can do. Something as vast as the global climate takes a very long time to change. The weather you're seeing is a result of what we did 40 years ago. We won't see the results of today's level of emissions until 2073. Well, probably not me, but the world. And we're not going to be cutting emissions for many years to come as the developing world continues to build coal plants. 

So the only logical thing is to do what we can to adjust to a warmer world, and not spend all our money and beggar our economy on a fruitless quest to meet some arbitrary goal and timeline so Truedope can flex and smirk at his admirers because he achieved 'net zero'. 

Spending $1.7 trillion for effectively NO gain is the height of insanity and narcissism.

But how much warmer the world becomes depend on the actions of each person and country on earth. Unless we are all going to move to underground bunkers in the hills or to another planet the degree of warming matters a great deal, partly because the problem is not linear. Warming above a certain critical level may produce dramatic positive feedback loops that cause a huge further increase in warming. In every country outside the US, China and India there are people saying their country’s contribution doesn’t matter so let’s just forget about it. But together those countries produce a large fraction of the total. 

[Aristides]

13 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So you're a lying sack of shit.  Well - typical of the 'environmental' types.

So you still can't name two.

Quote

 

Maybe  YOU should read it. These are experts who know their business and were able to use very advanced tools to achieve the results

 

It says the study was done from data acquired over a couple of hours. Meaning they never got out from behind their computer screens to actually verify anything.

Quote

Where's that document saying we don't have any more hydro capacity? Hmmm?  Don't have it? Right.

I've never said we have no more hydro capacity, just that there are no large rivers left to dam unless you want to dam the two biggest salmon producing rivers on the continent and destroy their runs like we and the Americans did to the Columbia.

 

Quote

And it still doesn't change the fact that there's nothing canada can do about 'climate change'.

Quote

 

Well if big emitters like us aren't prepared to do anything, why should anyone else. I guess we will all fry together as we point fingers.

 

Edited August 9, 2023 by Aristides

[I am Groot]

We are told climate change is a crisis, and that there is an “overwhelming scientific consensus.”
“It’s a manufactured consensus,” climate scientist Judith Curry tells me.
She says scientists have an incentive to exaggerate risk to pursue “fame and fortune.”
She knows about that because she once spread alarm about climate change.

 

https://nypost.com/2023/08/09/climate-scientist-admits-the-overwhelming-consensus-is-manufactured/?utm_source=reddit.com

[Army Guy]

On 8/8/2023 at 7:00 PM, Aristides said:

In 2020, China was the world leader in solar and wind generation.  Over 2.5 times  more solar generated electricity than #2 USA and over double the wind generated electricity of #2 USA. I think taxes are the lazy man's attempt at a solution.

India was 5th in solar generation and 4th in wind generation.

Like i said you can say anything with numbers, the fact remains they are the worlds leading emitter of carbon..., most of their power comes from coal fired plants, and they continue to build more...when they wake up in the morning and their cities look like they are in deep fog but is extremely poor air quality do to the fact they manufacture almost everything on the globe...India is the same...

You will never convince Canadians to jump on board this climate train, and sacrifice what is needed....to reduce our carbon footprint to where it is suppose to be... slashing our throats is not going to solve this... it needs to be a global issue, with global responses... that is really not happening is it, except in the EU, where they count cow farts...

 

[Aristides]

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Like i said you can say anything with numbers, the fact remains they are the worlds leading emitter of carbon..., most of their power comes from coal fired plants, and they continue to build more...when they wake up in the morning and their cities look like they are in deep fog but is extremely poor air quality do to the fact they manufacture almost everything on the globe...India is the same...

You will never convince Canadians to jump on board this climate train, and sacrifice what is needed....to reduce our carbon footprint to where it is suppose to be... slashing our throats is not going to solve this... it needs to be a global issue, with global responses... that is really not happening is it, except in the EU, where they count cow farts...

 

I've been to Beijing several times and the air quality does suck. Part of that is emissions and part is geography like Mexico City. Yes they use coal but they have done more with solar and wind than any other country. All that shit we buy from them isn't produced without any emissions. Our own consumption is a contributor to their emissions.

[CdnFox]

On 8/9/2023 at 11:38 AM, Aristides said:

.

It says the study was done from data acquired over a couple of hours. Meaning they never got out from behind their computer screens to actually verify anything.

 

No it doesn't  It said it took their system a few hours to go through the data.  But hey - why not lie about it?

Quote

I've never said we have no more hydro capacity,

Yeah you did  This is what created this whole argument.  You said we didn't - i said we did - now you're trying to walk it back because i proved you wrong.

Quote

Well if big emitters like us aren't prepared to do anything, why should anyone else. I guess we will all fry together as we point fingers.

We are small, teeny tiny emitters.  we represent a very tiny fraction of the emissions.  CHINA is a big emitter.

So - by your logic if they're not willing to do anything we shouldn't have to either.

5 hours ago, Aristides said:

Yes they use coal but they have done more with solar and wind than any other country.

Their emissions go up every year.  It doesn't matter a single drop what they've done.  Whatever it is it's no where remotely close to enough. And to pretend otherwise tells eveyrone you don't really believe in the whole 'global warming' crisis, or they would be your primary concern.

[Zeitgeist]

It comes down to cost-benefit ratios: What can the we do to get the goose in good shape without making it impossible to lay the golden egg? That egg is our quality of life, which includes the opportunity to use and expand our talents in good well paying jobs in an affordable marketplace with the best goods and services, including clean air and water, good commute times, leisure opportunities, good health and safety, and a reasonably harmonious society.

That requires affordable, abundant energy and a tax code that doesn’t disincentive hard work or cause excessive government intervention in our lives, though we might want certain socialized services.

I think it’s reasonable to try to prevent climate change within those parameters above, or else we kill the goose, at which point fighting climate change becomes a cause we won’t be able to afford or care to address.

In order to power the US with wind, an area twice the size of California would have to be covered with wind turbines. Obviously it’s unaffordable and environmentally catastrophic.  Solar panels also have a big ecological footprint.  Both of these forms of power require fossil fuel power to offset times when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing.  You can’t switch off nuclear and hydro like fossil fuels.  We can have some solar and wind where it works best.  Solar should be a standard component of roofs.  Wind turbines can be in very windy remote areas away from homes and sensitive habitats.

Geothermal heating, deep water cooling, and small nuclear reactors should be added to communities where viable and where added power supply is needed. Something as simple as painting streets and structures white sends heat back out into space.

Nuclear and hydro must be in the mix.  Where fossil fuel power is necessary, and it will continue to be, natural gas is better than coal because it emits half the greenhouse gasses and burns much cleaner.  Also, we have a lot of it.

The ugly truth is that where expensive power exists (often green power), industry flees to lower cost, dirtier jurisdictions.  In fact, the “developed countries” sell coal and fossil fuel to fuel China and India’s dirty power, and why shouldn’t we if the coal they’re going to burn has to come from somewhere?  Australia supplies China while using greener power at home.

If we don’t look at emissions on a global scale, we’re lying to ourselves about the value of what our green “net zero” power really means. It’s called greenwashing.

Carbon taxes are mostly a costly, inflationary shell game that adds cost to commodities that have already become expensive and that are unavoidable for most people. We can’t all live in an expensive Toronto home in walking distance to the subway like Freeland or afford $80,000 Teslas (the batteries for which are another environmental footprint). Our commuter rail systems are totally inadequate. The alternatives to driving simply aren’t realistic for most people. 

Edited August 12, 2023 by Zeitgeist

[Aristides]

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

No it doesn't  It said it took their system a few hours to go through the data.  But hey - why not lie about it?

Yeah you did  This is what created this whole argument.  You said we didn't - i said we did - now you're trying to walk it back because i proved you wrong.

We are small, teeny tiny emitters.  we represent a very tiny fraction of the emissions.  CHINA is a big emitter.

So - by your logic if they're not willing to do anything we shouldn't have to either.

Their emissions go up every year.  It doesn't matter a single drop what they've done.  Whatever it is it's no where remotely close to enough. And to pretend otherwise tells eveyrone you don't really believe in the whole 'global warming' crisis, or they would be your primary concern.

We live in such an integrated society that you can't really separate one country's emissions from another. We buy mega amounts of manufactured goods from China and their manufacture and shipping across the Pacific produces emissions. By the same token the products they buy from us also produce some emissions during their production and shipping. Pointing fingers is just dishonest. 

Stop buying so much from China and produce it all ourselves and then see where our emissions go.

[Zeitgeist]

14 minutes ago, Aristides said:

We live in such an integrated society that you can't really separate one country's emissions from another. We buy mega amounts of manufactured goods from China and their manufacture and shipping across the Pacific produces emissions. By the same token the products they buy from us also produce some emissions during their production and shipping. Pointing fingers is just dishonest. 

Stop buying so much from China and produce it all ourselves and then see where our emissions go.

No one will do that.  People will buy the cheapest goods forever.  

[Aristides]

35 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

No one will do that.  People will buy the cheapest goods forever.  

Exactly, so we have no business pointing at the people who provide those goods and blaming them for the emissions from their production or producing the power to make them.

 

China produces 57% of the world's steel, almost 7 times as much as the entire EU which is #2. India is #3 producing almost as much as the EU. Japan and the US are #4 and #5. What would be the emissions from all the countries who use that steel  if they had to produce it themselves?

[Zeitgeist]

44 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Exactly, so we have no business pointing at the people who provide those goods and blaming them for the emissions from their production or producing the power to make them.

 

China produces 57% of the world's steel, almost 7 times as much as the entire EU which is #2. India is #3 producing almost as much as the EU. Japan and the US are #4 and #5. What would be the emissions from all the countries who use that steel  if they had to produce it themselves?

Exactly, so get out of these fantasy climate agreements, drop the carbon taxes, and try to get some of that production back inside Canada.  We can still have sensible made in Canada emissions reductions.  What we have now isn’t lowering emissions; it’s just shifting production and business to Asia.

[Army Guy]

11 hours ago, Aristides said:

I've been to Beijing several times and the air quality does suck. Part of that is emissions and part is geography like Mexico City. Yes they use coal but they have done more with solar and wind than any other country. All that shit we buy from them isn't produced without any emissions. Our own consumption is a contributor to their emissions.

Either way you look at this problem, China is governed by a communist regime that concern is not on the climate crises, nor is it a concern what the rest of the world thinks about China...or the climate crises. And not only china, but the entire globe needs to be on the same page...or Canada's contributions will be a waste of time and resources.

Coal is their life blood, they import it by the thousands of tones...and that dependence is only climbing, even with solar and wind...which is not the solution but a stop gap tech...

Perhaps as a wider look we could look at our consumption habits, and start reducing some of the cheap shit we do buy.

 

[Aristides]

2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Exactly, so get out of these fantasy climate agreements, drop the carbon taxes, and try to get some of that production back inside Canada.  We can still have sensible made in Canada emissions reductions.  What we have now isn’t lowering emissions; it’s just shifting production and business to Asia.

All for it but  as you say, people want cheap stuff.

[Aristides]

We are fond of saying that the end user is responsible for the emissions that come from the energy we export but if so, don't we bear some responsibility for the emissions produced manufacturing and shipping the stuff we import?

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, Aristides said:

We live in such an integrated society that you can't really separate one country's emissions from another.

Well then pick the lowest emitting country -  we'll be those guys if all countries are the same.

 

5 hours ago, Aristides said:

Stop buying so much from China and produce it all ourselves and then see where our emissions go.

Up.  Along with costs. Are you suggesting that we'd be wise to embargo china in the name of climate change?

And again -  we're tiny. We buy a teeny tiny fraction of the goods that come out of china.  we're not close to their top consumer.  So even if we did do that - it would barely make a blip.

So unless you can explain why our economy should suffer and our people should suffer when it will do NO good and the big polluters will just keep on keeping on i think you're done.

 

[CdnFox]

44 minutes ago, Aristides said:

We are fond of saying that the end user is responsible for the emissions that come from the energy we export but if so, don't we bear some responsibility for the emissions produced manufacturing and shipping the stuff we import?

Not at all - that's what we have the carbon tax for.    Did you want some 'offset credits' to go along with that? I started a company and it does absolutely nothing  so it has lots of carbon credits - so if you give me money my company will issue you all the credits you like and the problem is solved.

[Zeitgeist]

7 hours ago, Aristides said:

All for it but  as you say, people want cheap stuff.

Well dropping the carbon taxes and some regulations will make production cheaper.  

[Aristides]

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Not at all - that's what we have the carbon tax for.    Did you want some 'offset credits' to go along with that? I started a company and it does absolutely nothing  so it has lots of carbon credits - so if you give me money my company will issue you all the credits you like and the problem is solved.

That's not what I'm talking about at all.

[CdnFox]

29 minutes ago, Aristides said:

That's not what I'm talking about at all.

But that's how we decided it works.

[Aristides]

10 hours ago, CdnFox said:

But that's how we decided it works.

But that is not what I am talking about. If we don't reduce our own consumption, how can we blame others for the emissions produced making what we consume. It's not just a matter of saying China bad when one of the reasons they are a high gross emitter is to provide stuff we want.

 

[Aristides]

 

As far as the carbon and other taxes go, if 50% of Canadians are within $200 of not being able to pay their monthly bills, you are not going to punish them into buying things they can't afford by making them even poorer with more taxes.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

But that is not what I am talking about. If we don't reduce our own consumption, how can we blame others for the emissions produced making what we consume.

 

Well presumably the same way we blame Canada for producing oil that others will burn.

In any case - it's not the production of goods that produces the GHG's, it's the production of energy they use to produce the goods.  And they have choices there.  So sure we can blame them.