The Environment Thread

[Atomic]

On 10/4/2016 at 5:33 PM, pigseye said:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/30/james-lovelock-interview-by-end-of-century-robots-will-have-taken-over

Even their own are stating to see the light

 

Thanks for posting.  Love that guy, couldn't agree more with him.

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

Interesting article... 

We may have to start a new thread again.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/17/us/neil-degrasse-tyson-on-climate-change-cnntv/index.html

 

 

[Mark F]

On 17/09/2017 at 2:54 PM, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Interesting article... 

We may have to start a new thread again.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/17/us/neil-degrasse-tyson-on-climate-change-cnntv/index.html

 

 

It is  too late to "stop " the effects of climate change.  It's clearly having effects now.

But It's not too late, to prevent them from being worse than they will be if nothing is done. 

No doubt he was angry, as he should be.

One of the caribbean islands is now completely depopulated. Every person that lived there, has had to leave. Everything is destroyed.  Can't imagine what's left of wild life, probably little to nothing.

Waters in the caribbean are above long term normal temperatures. High temperature water fuels stronger more damaging storms. No mystery there.

Three storms in three weeks, causing nearly one half trillion dollars damage. Just here in North America.

That is not sustainable. Not even by the USA.

need the oldtimers to get out of the way.

"A June 2014 Washington Post-ABC News poll asked a nationally representative sample of American respondents several questions about their support for climate policies. Specifically, those surveyed were asked whether they would be in favor of government greenhouse gas regulations that increased their monthly energy expenses by $20 per month. Overall, 63 percent of respondents expressed support for the proposed policy, including 51 percent of Republicans and 71 percent of Democrats.

Interestingly, there was a significant age gap among the responses. For Democrats under age 40, support for the policy proposal was 78 percent, as compared to 62 percent over age 65. Among Republicans, 61 percent under age 50 supported the proposed regulations, as compared to 44 percent over age 50. According to a Pew Research Center survey, younger Americans are also more likely to correctly answer that the planet is warming and that this warming is primarily due to human activities."

edit

 

tropical rainforests on some of those islands, now gone.

 

 

Edited September 22, 2017 by Mark F

[Atomic]

Taxes and fees will do nothing to reduce the human impact on climate change.  We should be incentivizing technological advancement rather than throwing more taxes on the population.

More green energy, more green transportation... that's the way forward.  Not asking everyone to reduce their consumption.  That's an idiotic approach and it will never work.

And by the way, until you can get China, India, and other highly populated countries to reduce their emissions, any changes made by the US and Canada will be futile.  We are just a drop in the bucket compared to what happens elsewhere in the world.

Make no mistake, all this talk of carbon and emissions tax is just a money grab by government, parading under the guise of protecting the environment.  It almost makes me sick how many people buy into the lie.

[17to85]

OK well you're right about Canada, we're pretty insignificant on the global scale, but the US is huge and any changes they make absolutely have a huge impact, but I agree with the sentiment of your post. Need the developing economies on board as well otherwise things will just keep getting worse. 

[Mark F]

China leads the world  in moving to renewable energy. India is making a very big push into solar, thwarted to some extent by American trade agreement actions. we know something about that here in Canada don't we?

"China has had a fantastically impressive year so far in terms of solar installations, and it doesn’t look like it is planning on stopping anytime soon, as the country managed to install 10.52 GW worth of new solar capacity in July alone.

Further, not only is 2017 a big year for solar installations, but China has already surpassed its 13th Five-Year Plan (2016-2020) target of 105 GW solar installations."

Canada's own emissions are low, but we  are significant when you include emissions from the fossil fuels we sell to other countries.

Texas, the oil industry hub, is one of the leaders in wind energy in North America. So it can be done. Even in places that have been oil producers.

The smart thing would be for fossil fuel companies to start the move to renewables,  which a few are doing, but I suspect the oil company CEO, probably has more interest in quarterly profits, which mean high bonuses for executives, who cares about the long term corporation prospects.

management style in these times, consists of loading up with debt, paying big fees and salaries, stripping what you can, for personal gain.  see "clear channel radio"

 

anyway,  utility scale renewable now competes with, or is cheaper than even Nat gas in some places.

still waiting for low cost renewable to get down to consumer level though.

 

Edited September 22, 2017 by Mark F

[Atomic]

And China is doing it without a carbon tax.  Funny how that works eh?

[Mark F]

China is what you would call a "dicatorship"
anyway, I was responding to your comment as follows:

Quote

 

"until you can get China, India, and other highly populated countries to reduce their emissions, any changes made by the US and Canada will be futile.

 

China is going full blast into renewable energy.

[17to85]

2 minutes ago, Mark F said:

 

China is going full blast into renewable energy.

I think a more accurate way to put it is China is going full blast trying to be energy self sufficient. They don't have a ton of oil, certainly nowhere near enough to meet their own needs so they need to look at other ways to do it. 

[Mark F]

3 hours ago, 17to85 said:

I think a more accurate way to put it is China is going full blast trying to be energy self sufficient. They don't have a ton of oil, certainly nowhere near enough to meet their own needs so they need to look at other ways to do it. 

probably correct, and smart on their part.

Look how much money has been spent protecting "our" oil,   in the middle east, lives lost. 

Not to mention what happens when you're dependent on whack jobs like the Saudis, Iranians ,Iraqis , UAR, Libya, and so on.  Be nice to kiss those medieval zealots goodbye when that finally happens.

But China also has to stop burning coal, or their cities will be unliveable.

 

 

Edited September 22, 2017 by Mark F

[17to85]

23 minutes ago, Mark F said:

probably correct, and smart on their part.

Look how much money has been spent protecting "our" oil,   in the middle east, lives lost. 

Not to mention what happens when you're dependent on whack jobs like the Saudis, Iranians ,Iraqis , UAR, Libya, and so on.  Be nice to kiss those medieval zealots goodbye when that finally happens.

But China also has to stop burning coal, or their cities will be unliveable.

 

 

You are aware that we are not the united states correct?

Canada may buy oil from those places, but we are certainly not dependent on them. We as a nation are a net exporter of oil. Hell even the Americans with shale oil becoming viable these days can pretty much supply themselves. That's one of the biggest reasons the price of oil tanked. OPEC didn't like it when they weren't relied on. 

[Mark F]

43 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

You are aware that we are not the united states correct?

Thought I was agreeing with you for the most part.

anyway, you pointed out that China wanted to be energy independent.

I pointed out that amount of money wasted on wars protecting access to middle eastern wars, which probably the Chinese don't want to get involved in, so they are becoming energy independent, and avoid that quagmire mess.

and our policy is pretty much aligned with the US on most things, including middle eastern wars. Canada is selling military hardware to saudis right now. as are the Americans.

 

Edited September 22, 2017 by Mark F

[Dragon37]

Just out of curiosity, since I don't have time to read through all the responses, has anybody even noticed that there is no such thing as Anthropomorphic Global Warming? The correct term is AnthroGENIC as in human genesis or human caused. Anthropomorphic is the embuing of human emotions/action upon another non-human creature.

[Mark F]

47 minutes ago, Dragon37 said:

Just out of curiosity, since I don't have time to read through all the responses, has anybody even noticed that there is no such thing as Anthropomorphic Global Warming? The correct term is AnthroGENIC as in human genesis or human caused. Anthropomorphic is the embuing of human emotions/action upon another non-human creature.

yes. and thanks for pointing it out.

" anthropomorthic"  is widely used this way. 

Similar to nucular energy. which you get from splitting the nuculus.

 

[Jacquie]

On 26/09/2017 at 7:39 AM, Dragon37 said:

Just out of curiosity, since I don't have time to read through all the responses, has anybody even noticed that there is no such thing as Anthropomorphic Global Warming? The correct term is AnthroGENIC as in human genesis or human caused. Anthropomorphic is the embuing of human emotions/action upon another non-human creature.

Didn't you know... global warming is all Wile E Coyote's fault. 

[blue_gold_84]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/environment-commissioner-report-climate-change-1.4317074

Quote

The federal government must put its plan to cut greenhouse gases and adapt to climate change into concrete action to mitigate the catastrophic effects of wildfires, floods and extreme weather events, Canada's environment watchdog warns.

In a blunt fall audit report tabled in the House of Commons on Tuesday, Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development Julie Gelfand said the government has failed to implement successive emissions-reduction plans, and is not prepared to adapt to the life-threatening, economically devastating impacts of a changing climate.

It is "crucial" that the government act now, she said.

"It's time for change. The federal government needs to start doing the hard work to turn this latest broad framework into tangible and measurable actions," Gelfand concludes in her report.

The government released the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change in December 2016, which was endorsed by all provinces and territories except Saskatchewan and Manitoba. 

But instead of presenting a detailed action plan to reach the 2020 target for reducing emissions, Gelfand said the government changed its focus to a new 2030 target.

The government has also failed to adopt regulations to reduce greenhouse gases that could help limit the risks of pollution, natural disasters, forest fires and floods, the audit finds.

 

[Fatty Liver]

16 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/environment-commissioner-report-climate-change-1.4317074

 

Our flawed political system prevents meaningful change in lieu of short-term political objectives.  Last PM we had with balls was Paul Martin.

[Atomic]

Climate change or not, there are still going to be wildfires, floods, and other natural disasters.  The link between increasing extreme climate activity and human-induced climate change is spurious at best.  This is merely an attempt to capitalize on immediate human suffering to gain support to achieve an agenda.

[Logan007]

1 hour ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

Our flawed political system prevents meaningful change in lieu of short-term political objectives.  Last PM we had with balls was Paul Martin Jean Chretien.

FTFY

[bearpants]

1 hour ago, Atomic said:

Climate change or not, there are still going to be wildfires, floods, and other natural disasters.  The link between increasing extreme climate activity and human-induced climate change is spurious at best.  This is merely an attempt to capitalize on immediate human suffering to gain support to achieve an agenda.

you make a good point here... I've always believed that the earth is going through some sort of cycle right now... historically the earth basically destroys itself every several million years, so maybe we are in the process of seeing that now... are humans helping out the cause? probably a little bit... but I have a hard time believing the current climate change is 100% human induced...

[Wideleft]

23 minutes ago, bearpants said:

you make a good point here... I've always believed that the earth is going through some sort of cycle right now... historically the earth basically destroys itself every several million years, so maybe we are in the process of seeing that now... are humans helping out the cause? probably a little bit... but I have a hard time believing the current climate change is 100% human induced...

Scientists have NEVER said it was 100% human induced, so I don't understand the leap.  And what you believe in this regard doesn't really amount to a hill of beans in the face of the mountain of scientific study and evidence that contradicts your belief.  

[Fatty Liver]

1 hour ago, Logan007 said:

FTFY

You mean da golf balls?

[Mark F]

 

5 hours ago, Wideleft said:

Scientists have NEVER said it was 100% human induced, so I don't understand the leap.  And what you believe in this regard doesn't really amount to a hill of beans in the face of the mountain of scientific study and evidence that contradicts your belief.  

 

Mountains of evidence is what there is, that it's mainly human caused.

Even the bloody oil companies acknowledge that.

Even fookin EXXon acknowledges it.

doesn't seem to matter to some people. 

 

Edited October 4, 2017 by Mark F

[17to85]

19 hours ago, Logan007 said:

FTFY

The same Chretien who signed Kyoto knowing full well that he had no intention of even trying to meet the targets?

[Atomic]

18 hours ago, Wideleft said:

Scientists have NEVER said it was 100% human induced, so I don't understand the leap.  And what you believe in this regard doesn't really amount to a hill of beans in the face of the mountain of scientific study and evidence that contradicts your belief.  

The part I have an issue with is this:

Quote

The federal government must put its plan to cut greenhouse gases and adapt to climate change into concrete action to mitigate the catastrophic effects of wildfires, floods and extreme weather events, Canada's environment watchdog warns.

There is very little scientific evidence that cutting greenhouse gases will "mitigate the catastrophic effects of wildfires, floods, and extreme weather events".  I can get on board with reducing human impact on the environment, but the jump she is making with this statement is unsupported and irresponsible, IMO.