Jump to content

Just how pointless and stupid our climate reductions efforts are


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Well the left didn't - guess you'll be wanting to switch to the right now :)

Not until I see what the right has to offer in the way of greater transparency.

Most conservatives seem as shocked and confused as progressives at the idea of greater public oversight of the government.

I said let's see what you got but I'm not expecting much. You're in good company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Not until I see what the right has to offer in the way of greater transparency.

Well THAT'S simple - they don't get involved in nearly as much crap so there's less to have to watch :)  

 

Quote

Most conservatives seem as shocked and confused as progressives at the idea of greater public oversight of the government.

I think they're more shocked at what you consider to be oversight, and that you feel it would do any good.

Transparency is a good thing. But you've got a bit of a weird idea of what it would look like,

Quote

I said let's see what you got but I'm not expecting much. You're in good company.

Yeah, i already answered that  and it was kind of a childish thing to say to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, West said:

Gas to go up 17 cents over night thanks to the imbeciles who voted to pay more in tax. 

Thanks for making life unaffordable lefties

This way you will be lead kicking and screaming into the future,

where you own nothing and you are happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We’re never going to agree on mitigation here - what to do about reducing greenhouse gas emissions - but I would hope we can develop some level of consensus on adapting our country to this new, hotter reality. As wiser heads than myself have already pointed out, we need to plant a different mix of trees that is more fire-resistant, i.e. more deciduous trees esp. aspen, and stop weeding out these less commercially valuable species from the stands as they grow. We may also have to accept that a large part of our current boreal forest should be allowed to become savannah with a greatly reduced tree density. Paradoxically, more fires are also needed, small controlled burns of the forest favoured by indigenous peoples in many parts of the world, to reduce the risk of catastrophic holocausts. I saw an angry New Yorker threatening to sue Canada over the smoke in his city. That funny moment is part of a larger reality. Americans will demand a much more effective response to our wildfires. 
 

I must disclose an ulterior motive here. Despite many years of trying, I cannot love black spruce. The bogs of my province boast half-dead zombie armies whose ragged upper branches are encrusted in old man’s beard. If there’s an uglier tree I have yet to see it. 

Edited by SpankyMcFarland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Record immigration is driving record emissions. Surprise!

“Ottawa’s decision to open the immigration floodgates is creating a growing asset-liability mismatch when it comes to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions,” the report said.

The federal government is targeting a reduction in annual GHG emissions to approximately 440 million tons by 2030, it noted.

“After slowly converging on this goal for most of the past decade, we estimate that a brutal reversal is now taking place,” NBF said.

https://www.investmentexecutive.com/news/research-and-markets/record-immigration-driving-record-emissions-nbf/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

The big national story of 2023, what looks like our worst wildfire season in Canadian history, is receiving rather fitful attention on this forum. Across the country, forest fires are adding alarmingly to our greenhouse gas emission bill.

Quote

In the age of extreme weather and climate agreements, the world has learned to tabulate ecological guilt nation by nation — cutting responsibility for the current crisis into so many slices of pie. Wildfire emissions typically aren’t even recorded on the balance sheet of any particular country’s ledger, but according to some tabulations, in 2021 wildfires in North America and Eurasia contributed more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than any nation but China, the United States and India. And the toxic smoke from those fires increasingly travels elsewhere, too, now regularly choking the air and blotting out the sun not just in cities built into nearby wildland but also in major concrete megalopolises whole continents — or even oceans — away. Whose responsibility is that?


Another problem: the new megafires are often too intense to fight with current technology:

Quote

…fire control is also growing harder because the fires themselves are changing. They produce such thick walls of smoke now that tanker planes sometimes can’t fly into them; they throw embers over what were once considered uncrossable fire breaks; they burn and smolder underground through winter; they get so hot that firefighters risk second-degree burns just approaching them. “The most powerful firefighting equipment that humans have — Canadair planes that cost roughly $35 million each and drop 30 bathtubs’ worth of water at a time — can extinguish fires with an intensity of up to 10,000 kilowatts per meter of fire line,” Henry Mance wrote recently in The Financial Times. “Today’s megafires are a different order of magnitude, sometimes exceeding 100,000 kilowatts per meter” — 10 times as intense. Water dumped from above can evaporate before it reaches the ground.


https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/26/opinion/climate-canada-wildfires-emissions.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

 

In wildfires we are looking at one of the many positive feedback loops that may take man-made climate change out of human control. 

Edited by SpankyMcFarland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

In wildfires we are looking at one of the many positive feedback loops that may take man-made climate change out of human control. 

It's not out of our control - we just don't control it.

Arguing how much of climate change is 'man made' or 'natural' etc is a m0ron's argument in practical terms.  Pretending that we as a nation were ever in a position to affect it is beyond stupid.  But - that's all the gov't has done.  Pretended they could affect it and then DONE NOTHING.  Trudeau brought in a carbon tax which has not made one tiny bit of difference but which he's using to line the gov'ts pockets.  And that's it.

Everyone can agree that for whatever reason climate change is happening and always is.  Hardly the first time in human history where climate change radically changed the world and almost wiped us out.  So - what we SHOULD be doing is adapting


We've known forest fires would get worse for a decade now.  Have we done anything? Developed new technology? Bought more fire tankers to deal with it? Do the provinces have a 'standing wildfirefighter army" to address it or do we still try to cobble together something every year?  Are we spending much money on it?

No to all. The federal and provincial gov'ts didn't give a crap.  Why? We already "fixed" climate change with a carbon tax - what more do you want?

BC - which tends to be a major wildfire area going back forever -  spends about 130 million on fighting forest fires each year.  That's it.  130 million.

That figure should be more like 2 billion.  We should have a dedicated wildfire defense plan with standing forces that train and are well equippped - we should have forest 'clean up' to help get rid of the dead undergrowth that piles up and makes these fires worse - we should be patrolling the wilderness areas a lot more to catch fires when they start and on the ground to catch offenders who do risky behavior and punish the hell out of them.

 

But we don't.  So how serious ARE people about climate change? Not at all really. They pay their tax so the problem is solved.  Right?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, herbie said:

No on wants to consider the forest fire season has anything to do with human activity, just that the percent amount of GHG they emit.

Yes, cancer is "natural occurrence" too.

therefore it must be stupid to try to do anything about it?

No, that would be the disjointed and dysphoric thinking of those on the left.

What sane people say is "reasonably even if we take it as read that the climate change is a result of humans, there's nothing we can reasonably do as a country that's going to make any difference. So - while we should do what we can our focus has to be on adapting".

 

What the loonie left says is "We must immediately implement a tax because that will work despite the fact it hasn't at all.  And china should be forgiven because they're a new emerging economy and climate change will respect that and won't happen because of their emissions.  And if you want to adapt then you're a denier".

So the sane people watch the forests burn knowing that the nutbars won't help them do anything to ACTUALLY stop it, and the nutbars watch it burn warmed by the fires and their passionate virtue signalling, knowing that they can pretend they cared and that's all that mattered

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

No, that would be the disjointed and dysphoric thinking of those on the left.

No the "left" has nothing to do with environmental and climate concerns. It is NOT a f*cking left/right issue as much as some of the extreme right retreads would like it to be.
My sarcasm was directed to stupid & lazy deniers who wish just another reason to deflect the issue from their tiny minds.

If the Tories pitiful lack of a climate policy bites them in the ass after a summer of fires, floods & storms and we see poll numbers drop, it will surprise no one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, herbie said:

No the "left" has nothing to do with environmental and climate concerns. It is NOT a f*cking left/right issue as much as some of the extreme right retreads would like it to be.

Sure it is. The Right considers the science and economics. The Left runs around screaming at the top of their lungs with their hair standing on end and their eyes bugging out of their pointy heads.

Look up El Nino, sometime, by the way, to find out why this spring is so much worse than last spring in terms of fires. Hint: Climate change moves very slowly. You don't see huge differences from year to year.

But every storm, every fire or flood the Left seizes on it to scaremonger about climate change.

Trudeau's goal of net neutral by 2035 is going to cost this country $1.7 TRILLION but the Left wants more. Like Trudeau, the Left not only doesn't understand economics it disdains it. The Left thinks caring about money and budgets and the economy is just beneath them. They think they're thinking BIG THOUGHTS and no one should care about the cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, herbie said:

No on wants to consider the forest fire season has anything to do with human activity, just that the percent amount of GHG they emit.

Yes, cancer is "natural occurrence" too.

therefore it must be stupid to try to do anything about it?

You wanna talk about human activity? Let's talk about lack there of. Ya know...I've gone out to clean the forest. Drag out the dead fall and brush. We used to do that every year in the Fall. Makes for great heating fuel and keeps the forest green so it doesn't go up like a tinderbox.

Or would that be stupid too?

Edited by Nationalist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the world, mainly the large emitters, that determine global CO2 emissions.  What Canada does has no significant impact on global events.  Today globally we use more oil than ever...101 million barrels a day.

What Canada can decide is whether it wishes to face the future as a rich or poor nation.  We're facing catastrophic events and we need resources to deal with them.  By crippling our economy we only make matters worse for ourselves and we save nothing.

So we need to look at what other countries are actually DOING, not preaching about, and act accordingly.  For example, we should commit to match the annual percentage reduction of GHG emissions of the USA, China and India.  We should commit to do our share but we should not shoot ourselves in both feet.           

Edited by Tony Hladun
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, herbie said:

No the "left" has nothing to do with environmental and climate concerns.

AAAAAAAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH  (brealthes in...) HAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!!!!

 

Quote

It is NOT a f*cking left/right issue as much as some of the extreme right retreads would like it to be.

Well of course it is. That is comfortably the dumbest thing you've said on this board and that's saying something.

And it was the left who turned it into one. As they do with everything it was "this is the way it is an anyone who disagrees or asks questions is cancelled!!!"

More recently anyone who doesn't believe heart and soul in the carbon tax is a denier and scumbag.  Despite the fact it obviously did nothing.

Quote

If the Tories pitiful lack of a climate policy bites them in the ass after a summer of fires, floods & storms and we see poll numbers drop, it will surprise no one.

If the liberals cilmate policy didn't stop the sumer of fires, floods and storms people are going to start asking questions about why they're lisening to the liberals who've been in pwoer for the last 7 years and achieved nothing :)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, I am Groot said:

The Right considers the science and economics.

As usual the right has it ass-backwards. They consider economics above the science. Most of the dolts here that define themselves as the right consider economics and not the science, nor the consequences. So they're not right at all, they're wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tony Hladun said:

We should commit to do our share but we should not shoot ourselves in both feet.           

We already did that decades ago, along with everyone else, when we ignored the science not to mention the economics.

Economists have always known adapting to climate change would cost far far in excess of what talking action would have cost.  It'll make COVID look like a sale at Thrifty's. 

I wonder how long it'll take to notice the frog in the pot has already died?

Maybe it's just pining for the fijords.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, CdnFox said:

It's not out of our control - we just don't control it.

Arguing how much of climate change is 'man made' or 'natural' etc is a m0ron's argument in practical terms.  Pretending that we as a nation were ever in a position to affect it is beyond stupid.  But - that's all the gov't has done.  Pretended they could affect it and then DONE NOTHING.  Trudeau brought in a carbon tax which has not made one tiny bit of difference but which he's using to line the gov'ts pockets.  And that's it.

Everyone can agree that for whatever reason climate change is happening and always is.  Hardly the first time in human history where climate change radically changed the world and almost wiped us out.  So - what we SHOULD be doing is adapting


We've known forest fires would get worse for a decade now.  Have we done anything? Developed new technology? Bought more fire tankers to deal with it? Do the provinces have a 'standing wildfirefighter army" to address it or do we still try to cobble together something every year?  Are we spending much money on it?

No to all. The federal and provincial gov'ts didn't give a crap.  Why? We already "fixed" climate change with a carbon tax - what more do you want?

BC - which tends to be a major wildfire area going back forever -  spends about 130 million on fighting forest fires each year.  That's it.  130 million.

That figure should be more like 2 billion.  We should have a dedicated wildfire defense plan with standing forces that train and are well equippped - we should have forest 'clean up' to help get rid of the dead undergrowth that piles up and makes these fires worse - we should be patrolling the wilderness areas a lot more to catch fires when they start and on the ground to catch offenders who do risky behavior and punish the hell out of them.

 

But we don't.  So how serious ARE people about climate change? Not at all really. They pay their tax so the problem is solved.  Right?


OK, I think we are both arguing for more spending and action on wildfires. No sensible person believes a carbon tax on its own will sort out our wildfire problem. I am merely pointing out that we cannot know how bad this problem will get, humility in the face of our ignorance being the prudent position to take, and whether we will be able to stop a dramatic escalation in its extent. However, we should do everything in our power to stop such a leap.


 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

No, that would be the disjointed and dysphoric thinking of those on the left.

What sane people say is "reasonably even if we take it as read that the climate change is a result of humans, there's nothing we can reasonably do as a country that's going to make any difference. So - while we should do what we can our focus has to be on adapting".

 

What the loonie left says is "We must immediately implement a tax because that will work despite the fact it hasn't at all.  And china should be forgiven because they're a new emerging economy and climate change will respect that and won't happen because of their emissions.  And if you want to adapt then you're a denier".

So the sane people watch the forests burn knowing that the nutbars won't help them do anything to ACTUALLY stop it, and the nutbars watch it burn warmed by the fires and their passionate virtue signalling, knowing that they can pretend they cared and that's all that mattered


It is possible to tackle the megafires themselves and the fundamental cause of such megafires simultaneously. I’m as least as anxious as anybody on the right to direct our national resources to saving what we can of our forests. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, herbie said:

As usual the right has it ass-backwards. They consider economics above the science. Most of the dolts here that define themselves as the right consider economics and not the science, nor the consequences. So they're not right at all, they're wrong.

Sure - which is why justin and you dolts on the left have been so successful fighting climate change right?  Thanks to 7 years of you m0rons  we were able to avoid any forest fires this year at all...   oh  wait....

You don't care about climate change. you care about virtue signalling about climate change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:


It is possible to tackle the megafires themselves and the fundamental cause of such megafires simultaneously. I’m as least as anxious as anybody on the right to direct our national resources to saving what we can of our forests. 

It is not possible for us to address the fundimental causes no matter what we do - simultaneous or not. China's increases its' GHG emissions by the entire amount Canada puts out every two years.  If we stopped everything tomorrow and shut the whole country down and everyone died - two years later china will have replaced us with new emissions.

At best we can be a bit of a symbol and lead by example so to speak - which would be fine but we're not even doing that. Trudeau has missed his paris accord targets by a mile.

The only other thing we could do would be to put massive resources into developing next gen tech  that will reduce the world's need to use carbon fuels etc.   And we're not even bothering with that.

 

So 'simultaneous' really isn't in the cards for us at this point. Except we are simultaneously achieving neither.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:


OK, I think we are both arguing for more spending and action on wildfires. No sensible person believes a carbon tax on its own will sort out our wildfire problem.

Fair enough

Quote

 I am merely pointing out that we cannot know how bad this problem will get, humility in the face of our ignorance being the prudent position to take, and whether we will be able to stop a dramatic escalation in its extent. However, we should do everything in our power to stop such a leap.

The only thing we could reasonably do is develop new tech such as battery storage and energy creation tech that would eliminate the need for GHG creation at an affordable price.  That's pretty much it. 

Instead we did a carbon tax that changed nothing, committed to all kinds of targets in paris that we've totally missed, and patted ourselves on the back about how nobel we are while the weather warms.

Give me a solid plan that would actually make a real difference and i'll support it but it's getting hard to know what that would even look like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

It is not possible for us to address the fundimental causes no matter what we do - simultaneous or not. China's increases its' GHG emissions by the entire amount Canada puts out every two years.  If we stopped everything tomorrow and shut the whole country down and everyone died - two years later china will have replaced us with new emissions.

At best we can be a bit of a symbol and lead by example so to speak - which would be fine but we're not even doing that. Trudeau has missed his paris accord targets by a mile.

The only other thing we could do would be to put massive resources into developing next gen tech  that will reduce the world's need to use carbon fuels etc.   And we're not even bothering with that.

 

So 'simultaneous' really isn't in the cards for us at this point. Except we are simultaneously achieving neither.


We’ll have to agree to disagree on amelioration. That doesn’t mean any further delay on adaptation. All major political parties have to agree now to move ASAP to save what we can of our forests. These fires will only get worse.   

Edited by SpankyMcFarland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:


We’ll have to agree to disagree on amelioration. That doesn’t mean any further delay on adaptation. All major political parties have to agree now to move ASAP to save what we can of our forests. These fires will only get worse.   

Sure - and if you can show a path to effective reductions that impact actual global warming then i'd get behind that too - i just don't see it.  But we can agree to agree that a) adaption is necessary and b) if there is a solution to reducing the harm then it can happen at the same time,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,750
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Betsy Smith
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...