Just how pointless and stupid our climate reductions efforts are

[Aristides]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

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. 

Some people do for sure but they conveniently ignore they are helping support that burning every time they go to Walmart, Canadian Tire etc.

[Dougie93]

15 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

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

but we are in the throes of a secular crisis similar to the 17th century

so this is like Protestants v. Papists

this is religion not economics

the taxes are actually a tithing to the Church of Climate Change

[Dougie93]

4 hours ago, Aristides said:

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.

except the bulk of the punishment is in things which people have to buy

food, energy & shelter

[Aristides]

16 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

except the bulk of the punishment is in things which people have to buy

food, energy & shelter

Yup.

[Dougie93]

33 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Yup.

but again, this is not politics, this is religion

the Liberals are collapsing down unto a base of religious zealots therein

punishment is the point

the masses are required to suffer for their climate sins

this is a secular crisis right out of the 17th century

like the Thirty Years War between Protestants & Catholics

the 17th century even had a climate crisis

except it was cooling not warming

a mini ice age which incited poverty & famine & war

this is how and why in fact Canada was colonized

the mini ice age incited the fur trade into the most lucrative business on earth

Beaver hats were in extreme demand

Edited August 13, 2023 by Dougie93

[Legato]

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Coal/China-Has-Approved-More-Than-50-Gigawatts-Of-New-Coal-Power.html

[Aristides]

3 minutes ago, Legato said:

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Coal/China-Has-Approved-More-Than-50-Gigawatts-Of-New-Coal-Power.html

Won't be long before climate change hits our hydro generating capacity, if it isn't already.

[Dougie93]

11 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Won't be long before climate change hits our hydro generating capacity, if it isn't already.

idk

the heat bubble in the South Pacific might be inciting drought in the west

but in the east it's been monsoon season

water levels on Lake Ontario have been rising steadily day by day

so long as there is water for the nuclear reactors, hydro is secure

climate change has irregular effects

places like Southern Ontario are becoming increasingly tropical

Edited August 13, 2023 by Dougie93

[Moonlight Graham]

We should all be doing our part to reduce GHG but Canada shouldn't throttle its economy far beyond what the US and China are doing just so our politicians can pat themselves on the back.  Those countries need to lead.  There's no reason for Canada to take a big hit economically when the environmental gains are negligible.

And just for the record, all of the scientifically illiterate rightwing climate change deniers over the last 2 decades are absolute fools.  Their ideology isn't science and their beliefs are as much a religion as the enviro-nutters.

[Legato]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

Won't be long before climate change hits our hydro generating capacity, if it isn't already.

and coal burning power stations are going to solve it?

[Aristides]

30 minutes ago, Legato said:

and coal burning power stations are going to solve it?

What do you suggest they do? What do you suggest we do if our hydro is impacted by lower water levels due to warming?

Four of our provinces and one territory depend almost totally on hydro generated power.

Edited August 13, 2023 by Aristides

[Zeitgeist]

Canada stands to benefit greatly from increased temperatures, as northern seafront becomes ice free and migrants seek to move north.  We need to adapt and prepare for the boom (if you think the temperature changes will be significant).Reducing emissions is a long game that’s highly tech and cost dependent.

[Dougie93]

Just now, Zeitgeist said:

Canada stands to benefit greatly from increased temperatures, as northern seafront becomes ice free and migrants seek to move north.  We need to adapt and prepare for the boom (if you think the temperature changes will be significant).Reducing emissions is a long game that’s highly tech and cost dependent.

agreed

the climate change hysteria in Canada is ironically most unwarranted

since Canada would become a lush tropical paradise therein

it's Australia who should be freaking out ; burned to a crisp like Saudi Arabia without oil

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

What do you suggest they do? What do you suggest we do if our hydro is impacted by lower water levels due to warming?

Four of our provinces and one territory depend almost totally on hydro generated power.

Dam more rivers   and do more run of river and similar projects .  

Nobody believes your fearmongering.  Least of all the politicians.

If climate change makes things we do now difficult to do, we'll do what we have always done - adapt.  But it's painfully obvious that even you don't really believe this stuff - imagine believing that climate change is an existential threat and saying that we should let the chinese off because they're "trying really hard and it's not fair",  or saying that WE who produce next to nothing are  "Big polluters" who must 'set an example' for the little guys like china and india FFS.  

Hell you couldn't even be honest about our hydro potential - tried to lie your way out of that a half dozen times misquoting what the document i provided said and claiming we don't have any undammed rivers left which is beyond asinine.

 

So of you don't believe what you say and you have to lie to make your point about it - why exactly should we believe it again?

[Aristides]

Dam which rivers? I keep asking you.

All of BC is under Stage 4 and 5 drought conditions right now.  You need water for hydro.

 

[Aristides]

I'm not  saying we should let China off, just recognize that we are part of the reason their pollution is high. So is every other country that relies on cheap Chinese manufactured products. They are using coal because it is cheap and we want cheap Chinese products.

[CdnFox]

57 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Dam which rivers? I keep asking you.

 

Show me the report that says there are none.  I keep asking you.

The problem is you're a lying sack of crap that keeps 'Asking" for things ad nausium.  I"ve already provided plenty of proof that there's tonnes of hydro capacity - now you want more, then it'll be demanding the plans.

If you had half a brain or any knowledge of history you'd know there are two more locations on the peace river alone which are suitable for dams and we've known that since the 60's. You can find all kinds of reports on them but just to show they exist:

he name dates back to the late 1950s when a predecessor company of BC Hydro was exploring the hydroelectric potential of the Peace River. While sites had been identified for the future locations of the W.A.C. Bennett and Peace Canyon dams, further exploration was done to identify locations between Peace Canyon and the Alberta border. In 1958, Sites A, B, C, D and E were identified. By 1978, the current Site C location was confirmed as the best option for a third dam on the Peace River.

And that's JUST the peace river - there are OTHERS as well. 

So that tells me you have ZERO knowledge of what you're talking about.  The decision won't be "can we build a dam" - it will be "Should we build more mega dams or should we do more run of the river and smaller dams?"

Figured i'd give you a chance to hang yourself with your lack of knoweldge - and you did.  What an !diot. 

So - why the hell should anyone  believe a single thing you say about cimate change?  Given  that you're prepared to lie about just about anything apparently?

[Aristides]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Show me the report that says there are none.  I keep asking you.

The problem is you're a lying sack of crap that keeps 'Asking" for things ad nausium.  I"ve already provided plenty of proof that there's tonnes of hydro capacity - now you want more, then it'll be demanding the plans.

If you had half a brain or any knowledge of history you'd know there are two more locations on the peace river alone which are suitable for dams and we've known that since the 60's. You can find all kinds of reports on them but just to show they exist:

he name dates back to the late 1950s when a predecessor company of BC Hydro was exploring the hydroelectric potential of the Peace River. While sites had been identified for the future locations of the W.A.C. Bennett and Peace Canyon dams, further exploration was done to identify locations between Peace Canyon and the Alberta border. In 1958, Sites A, B, C, D and E were identified. By 1978, the current Site C location was confirmed as the best option for a third dam on the Peace River.

And that's JUST the peace river - there are OTHERS as well. 

So that tells me you have ZERO knowledge of what you're talking about.  The decision won't be "can we build a dam" - it will be "Should we build more mega dams or should we do more run of the river and smaller dams?"

Figured i'd give you a chance to hang yourself with your lack of knoweldge - and you did.  What an !diot. 

So - why the hell should anyone  believe a single thing you say about cimate change?  Given  that you're prepared to lie about just about anything apparently?

Name two. Site C will increase generating capacity by less than 12%. How many Site C's are you going to build and where will you build them? How many river valleys will you submerge?  Run of river requires just that, a running river. If river levels are down because of drought, so will their generating capacity at a time when demand is high for air conditioning.

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Aristides said:

Name two.

I literally just named 2. 

LOL  is your liberal brain stuck on repeat? Are you broken this early in the morning?

 

Quote

How many river valleys will you submerge?  

Ohhh look - the crybaby liberal is trying to change the subject now that he realizes he lost    Typical liberal.  You're just another lying sack of Grit

As i have already proven - probably none.  I said we'd likely go more with run of the river style projects and smaller dams. And yes - many run of the river projects also invovle dams - they're just not megaproject dams.

What a loser you are.  No wonder nobody believes you about climate change. If the only thing you bring to the table is dishonesty then it sounds like climate change is a joke.

[Aristides]

The WAC Bennet dam is over 50 years old. Site C is costing over 16 billion. How many river valleys will you destroy?

BC's two largest lakes, Williston and the Nechako Reservoir were formed by dams. How many more valleys will you destroy?

Again. run of river requires a running river and is dependent on stream flow

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, Aristides said:

The WAC Bennet dam is over 50 years old. Site C is costing over 16 billion. How many river valleys will you destroy?

4,287..  Next stupid question pls.

Quote

BC's two largest lakes, Williston and the Nechako Reservoir were formed by dams. How many more valleys will you destroy?

All of them.   Next stupid question pls.

Quote

Again. run of river requires a running river and is dependent on stream flow

a) - no, they often do small dams

b) -  a shocking number of rivers actually have running water and lots of it. Do you have any scientific proof that all the rivers in bc are going to go dry anytime soon?

c) - i've already posted proof that we can easily - EASILY - -provide for all our energy needs for the next 30 years and beyond with run of the river alone.

See - here's how stupid your argument is -   You CLAIM that global warming is going to destroy the planet, or at least wipe out a large hunk of humanity.  It's a serious threat you claim. We HAVE to reduce emissions!

And yet - you're arguing AGAINST HYDRO POWER - one of the BEST forms of renewable energy, You think that flooding a valley is so  horrible we should destroy the planet instead.  That's your arguement.

 

And at the end of the day - this is what it's like with all environmental nutjobs.  You don't want carbon power, you don't want hydro power, you don't want nuclear power - you MIGHT consider solar (wind kills too many birds) which of course can't produce the power we need at all.

So you hate any solution.  You'd like us to just die.  Well... you go first. Go turn off all your power, throw the keys to your car away, don't burn anything for heat, don't eat anything that took energy to grow - i daresay your complaining will die off pretty quick one way or another  

[Aristides]

So where will people live and grow their food if you flood all the valleys? Your responses are getting more outrageous every time. You would turn the whole Okanagan valley into a lake.

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, Aristides said:

So where will people live and grow their food if you flood all the valleys?

On the moon of course. I mean - seeing as we're just making up fake bullshit at this point. 

And seeing as you believe that climate change will wipe us out anyway you'd think that would be more of a concern for you - but strangely climate change isn't real the moment we start talking about solutions.

You're a joke, and you make climate change look like a joke.

Edited August 14, 2023 by CdnFox

[ExFlyer]

2 hours ago, Aristides said:

Dam which rivers? I keep asking you.

All of BC is under Stage 4 and 5 drought conditions right now.  You need water for hydro.

 

I flew up and down the west coast for years (low level in a helicopter). There are lots of waterfalls right into the ocean.

There has even been suggestions that this water be tankered and sent down to California.

Point is, there are lots of rivers that can be turned into hydro sources.

Edited August 14, 2023 by ExFlyer

[CdnFox]

8 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

I flew up and down the west coast for years (low level in a helicopter). There are lots of waterfalls right into the ocean.

There has even been suggestions that this water be tankered and sent down to California.

Point is, there are lots of rivers that can be turned into hydro sources.

Literally thousands, as per that report i posted.   We don't even have to build large dams, we can do all of what we need with run of river.

throw in a little solar to help out in the summer and we're good for ages.