Just how pointless and stupid our climate reductions efforts are

[psikeyhackr]

7 minutes ago, eyeball said:

If it took 50 years or more to agree climate change is even real how much time it will take to agree on its severity and what to do about it is anyone's guess but I suspect it will always be a dollar short and a day late - to put it mildly.

I am betting on 2.8 degrees by 2100.

Nobody mentions CO2 resulting from unnecessary manufacturing due to planned obsolescence.

GDP is Grossly Distorted Propaganda

How much have American consumers lost on the annual depreciation of automobiles since Sputnik? Get an economist's opinion.

[I am Groot]

2 hours ago, bcsapper said:

How does that work exactly?  We all just move three hundred miles north and hope for the best?

Genuine question.  I have no idea.

The way they measure gains or losses due to climate change is by estimating the gains or losses to GDP. Obviously if your crops won't grow and your cities are flooded that would tend to have a poor impact on GDP. But the impact on Canada's GDP by climate change was estimated at almost nothing. Same for most of Europe and Russia, with somewhat larger but still tolerable impacts on places like the US, Italy, Greece, etc.  The worst impacts will be around the equator.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

The way they measure gains or losses due to climate change is by estimating the gains or losses to GDP. Obviously if your crops won't grow and your cities are flooded that would tend to have a poor impact on GDP. But the impact on Canada's GDP by climate change was estimated at almost nothing. Same for most of Europe and Russia, with somewhat larger but still tolerable impacts on places like the US, Italy, Greece, etc.  The worst impacts will be around the equator.

Do you figure the impact of hundreds of millions of refugees around the planet will be a nothingburger too? 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

The way they measure gains or losses due to climate change is by estimating the gains or losses to GDP. Obviously if your crops won't grow and your cities are flooded that would tend to have a poor impact on GDP. But the impact on Canada's GDP by climate change was estimated at almost nothing. Same for most of Europe and Russia, with somewhat larger but still tolerable impacts on places like the US, Italy, Greece, etc.  The worst impacts will be around the equator.

GDP as a whole or GDP growth over time? I'm not much of a economist.

Because if the GDP is the only thing that matters why not increase the carbon tax?  I looked it up.

Between 2018 and 2022, the application of the federal carbon pollution pricing system in the nine jurisdictions that do not currently have their own regimes in place is estimated to impact average annual real GDP growth rates for Canada by less than one tenth of one percentage point.

Might as well increase it.  Use some of the money to find a place for some of the refugees @eyeball is talking about.

Unless you're worried about the effect the tax has on individuals.

Edited June 10, 2023 by bcsapper

[Aristides]

By far the largest sector of our GDP is real estate and rental and leasing. Our total GDP is not a good indicator of our productivity. 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/594293/gross-domestic-product-of-canada-by-industry-monthly/

 

Talking to a Sumas Prairie dairy farmer. He was having to irrigate in May, the first time he has had to irrigate before July, ever.

Edited June 10, 2023 by Aristides

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, psikeyhackr said:

There was a video in the post about it raining for 2 million years. Did you watch it?

THere was also a statement about the 1300's, but you said I had to go back 5,000,000 years.  Clearly i didn't - the 1300's was a good example too.

You're not terribly bright are you.

I don't mind legit criticism, but dumb is just annoying. Pls step it up a little. 

[I am Groot]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Do you figure the impact of hundreds of millions of refugees around the planet will be a nothingburger too? 

Nope. Was just talking about the impact of the weather on Canada. 

As for the refugees, obviously, we need to change our laws so we can just turn them away.

[I am Groot]

2 hours ago, bcsapper said:

GDP as a whole or GDP growth over time? I'm not much of a economist.

Because if the GDP is the only thing that matters why not increase the carbon tax?  I looked it up.

Between 2018 and 2022, the application of the federal carbon pollution pricing system in the nine jurisdictions that do not currently have their own regimes in place is estimated to impact average annual real GDP growth rates for Canada by less than one tenth of one percentage point.

Might as well increase it.

Increasing the cost of energy and manufacturing just drives manufacturing to other countries and makes us poorer. It's a very big country, a very cold country, or in summer a very steamy one. We need energy a lot. And unlike in the developing world our energy isn't powered by coal. It's mostly clean. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, I am Groot said:

Increasing the cost of energy and manufacturing just drives manufacturing to other countries and makes us poorer. It's a very big country, a very cold country, or in summer a very steamy one. We need energy a lot. And unlike in the developing world our energy isn't powered by coal. It's mostly clean. 

I'm not one who says we should shut down our energy industry.  I just don't give a hoot how much you tax it.  If there's a profit to be made, they'll produce it.

Tax them more.  Make them clean up their messes too.

[I am Groot]

9 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I'm not one who says we should shut down our energy industry.  I just don't give a hoot how much you tax it.  If there's a profit to be made, they'll produce it.

Tax them more.  Make them clean up their messes too.

Can't. The profits aren't as high as you seem to believe for them due to the lack of pipelines. They can only sell into an extremely crowded market in the US midwest, which means the buyer gets to lower the price - a lot. A barrel of oil from Texas goes for just over $70 a barrel. From Western Canada it's just under $59.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Can't. The profits aren't as high as you seem to believe for them due to the lack of pipelines. They can only sell into an extremely crowded market in the US midwest, which means the buyer gets to lower the price - a lot. A barrel of oil from Texas goes for just over $70 a barrel. From Western Canada it's just under $59.

We can agree on the need for pipelines, at least.

[Aristides]

28 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Nope. Was just talking about the impact of the weather on Canada. 

As for the refugees, obviously, we need to change our laws so we can just turn them away.

What will you do, build a wall?

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Can't. The profits aren't as high as you seem to believe for them due to the lack of pipelines. They can only sell into an extremely crowded market in the US midwest, which means the buyer gets to lower the price - a lot. A barrel of oil from Texas goes for just over $70 a barrel. From Western Canada it's just under $59.

Suncor seem to be doing okay:

Suncor Energy annual/quarterly revenue history and growth rate from 2010 to 2023. Revenue can be defined as the amount of money a company receives from its customers in exchange for the sales of goods or services. Revenue is the top line item on an income statement from which all costs and expenses are subtracted to arrive at net income.

• Suncor Energy revenue for the quarter ending March 31, 2023 was $9.060B, a 15.02% decline year-over-year.
• Suncor Energy revenue for the twelve months ending March 31, 2023 was $43.372B, a 23.78% increase year-over-year.
• Suncor Energy annual revenue for 2022 was $44.973B, a 44.15% increase from 2021.
• Suncor Energy annual revenue for 2021 was $31.199B, a 66.83% increase from 2020.
• Suncor Energy annual revenue for 2020 was $18.701B, a 36.35% decline from 2019.

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/SU/suncor-energy-/revenue

But like I said earlier, I'm no economist.  It could all be smoke and mirrors as far as I'm concerned.

Edited June 11, 2023 by bcsapper

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Nope. Was just talking about the impact of the weather on Canada. 

As for the refugees, obviously, we need to change our laws so we can just turn them away.

Nah, increase taxes so we can look after them when they get here.  Alberta, especially, has a lot of room.

That's what friends are for, after all.

 

[WestCanMan]

6 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Well, you wouldn't be the first person to reject science. 

And follow all the vaxtards? No thanks, I'll stay on the side of actual science. 

[WestCanMan]

6 hours ago, psikeyhackr said:

There was a video in the post about it raining for 2 million years. Did you watch it?

Don't need to, I live in BC. 

The post also talked about 1300, which was quite recent as far as this topic is concerned.

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

And follow all the vaxtards? No thanks, I'll stay on the side of actual science. 

You get medical science mixed up with climate science?  It sounds to me like you just don't like science.

What's your sign?

[SpankyMcFarland]

11 hours ago, I am Groot said:

The last time I saw comparison maps of what countries would 'suffer' the most from climate change in a century Canada was one of those who would suffer almost nothing. We'll lose some land do to drought and flood but gain other land as previously unused lands become more capable of growing food. Overall, the difference to our GDP in a century was estimated at +/- 1%. 

So ditch the silly hyperbole.

At least admit the bleedin’ obvious happening before your eyes in what is called real time - we will CONTINUE to lose increasing amounts of forests to fire. And that will be a problem not only for us but for our neighbours too, as we have seen already, because climate catastrophes are messy like that. 
 

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

And follow all the vaxtards? No thanks, I'll stay on the side of actual science. 

Vaccination, one of the few times, up there with antibiotics, that medicine came up with something as useful as clean water and better housing in dramatically advancing the human condition. That technology? 
 

Basically, what we’re dealing with is a Ferris wheel of explanations as to why we shouldn’t turn the oil off. Now it’s the hydrocarbon usage of other countries that forms the most popular argument. Before, the same type of people were fond of  denying climate change completely. The arguments change but their intent doesn't. 

Edited June 11, 2023 by SpankyMcFarland

[psikeyhackr]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Don't need to, I live in BC. 

The post also talked about 1300, which was quite recent as far as this topic is concerned.

It didn't say what was happening in the 14th century. It was the Little Ice Age. I don't think anyone is saying that CO2 is going to do that to the global climate.

[psikeyhackr]

11 hours ago, I am Groot said:

True enough. The question that arises then is would an increase in temperature make it more difficult to grow wheat, corn, and rice? My guess is... no.

 

[CdnFox]

26 minutes ago, psikeyhackr said:

 

But that's already been addresed. This is Canada - we have the water. We will have to make changes but there you go.

[I am Groot]

13 hours ago, Aristides said:

What will you do, build a wall?

I think the Americans will wind up doing that. What we need to do is change our laws, remove ourselves from refugee treaties we've signed, and be prepared to stop, arrest, and deport migrants as soon as they get here. 

Lest you think that's cold-hearted. It is. But our society will not survive if millions of impoverished third-world people arrive. It will be reduced to chaos and disorder. David Frum once said something to the effect that if politicians say only fascists will protect the borders the voters will elect fascists to protect the borders. That is exactly what will happen.

[I am Groot]

12 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

At least admit the bleedin’ obvious happening before your eyes in what is called real time - we will CONTINUE to lose increasing amounts of forests to fire.

Will we? Maybe we're planting the wrong kind of trees? Maybe our forest management isn't up to par. I'm sure there are things that can be done to lessen the risk of forest fires. Note that while we're having huge fires things seem okay in Texas. 

13 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Nah, increase taxes so we can look after them when they get here. 

No thank you.

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Will we? Maybe we're planting the wrong kind of trees? Maybe our forest management isn't up to par. I'm sure there are things that can be done to lessen the risk of forest fires. Note that while we're having huge fires things seem okay in Texas. 

No thank you.

We will, unless the area vulnerable to them is reduced due to previous fires.  I bet the area west of Cynthia will be fairly safe for a few years.  You can't have a fire where there is nothing left to burn.

There are things that can be done, for sure.  As I said earlier, instead of allowing campfires and ATVs year round with periodic bans due to conditions, we could ban them year round with periods where they would be allowed due to conditions. 

We could manage the forest floor to reduce fuel, and we could proactively clear particularly vulnerable areas near population centres.  If a fire doesn't threaten homes or people, it need not be fought as hard and resources can be placed elsewhere. We would need to increase taxes to pay for those projects.

What did Texas do?  Should we be doing that?

[I am Groot]

2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

What did Texas do?  Should we be doing that?

Given the crap governments down there I doubt Texas has done much of anything but I bet they have different trees down there and in Mexico, ones that perhaps don't need as much water. Perhaps if areas of Canada become dryer we might consider planting some of those.