The Environment Thread

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

4 minutes ago, pigseye said:

6000 reasons for you, try going without and then get back to me.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/partial-list-over-6000-products-made-from-one-barrel-oil-steve-pryor

 

 

Going through that list and it seems many of them have non-petroleum based alternatives and a lot of the examples listed... Can live with out.

 

[pigseye]

30 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Going through that list and it seems many of them have non-petroleum based alternatives and a lot of the examples listed... Can live with out.

 

I agree, there are many things we can do without or find alternatives for but that's not the point. It's something like 80% of everything we use is dependant on petroleum products. No way we are kicking that habit without major pain. Finding a way to clean up emissions just makes way more sense than anything else they have come up with so far.  

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

4 minutes ago, pigseye said:

I agree, there are many things we can do without or find alternatives for but that's not the point. It's something like 80% of everything we use is dependant on petroleum products. No way we are kicking that habit without major pain. Finding a way to clean up emissions just makes way more sense than anything else they have come up with so far.  

I don't recall anyone saying it was going to be a cake walk. Needs to be done. 

 

Sure clean up the emissions, that is part of striving for carbon negative- couple it reducing and eventually replacing. 

[blue_gold_84]

56 minutes ago, pigseye said:

6000 reasons for you, try going without and then get back to me.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/partial-list-over-6000-products-made-from-one-barrel-oil-steve-pryor

No one is arguing the importance of petroleum in today's world; that was hardly the point. I said you made a garbage false equivalency, which you did.

A human being doesn't need petroleum/fossil fuels to survive. The human race fared pretty well before it discovered them. A human being does need to defecate in order to survive. As if anyone has to even point that out to you.

[Wideleft]

29 minutes ago, pigseye said:

I agree, there are many things we can do without or find alternatives for but that's not the point. It's something like 80% of everything we use is dependant on petroleum products. No way we are kicking that habit without major pain. Finding a way to clean up emissions just makes way more sense than anything else they have come up with so far.  

So let me get this straight.

You claim that 25,000 years ago, we were 6 degrees warmer so everything will be fine even if we don't do a damn thing about climate change (neglecting human populations and their massive effects on drainage, water management, biodiversity etc.).

But also.

No one used petroleum products 125 years ago but it will be too inconvenient for us to change now.

[kelownabomberfan]

1 hour ago, blue_gold_84 said:

 

A human being doesn't need petroleum/fossil fuels to survive. 

One human being no.  7 billion - yes.

[kelownabomberfan]

1 hour ago, Wideleft said:

 

No one used petroleum products 125 years ago but it will be too inconvenient for us to change now.

We'd also be dead pretty quickly.  125 years ago there were 1.5 billion people on the planet (maybe, no one was counting back then).  Now there are almost 8 billion.  What the climate apocalyptics really want is a mass human cull.  That would be the direct result of no more fossil fuels.  That combine harvesting all of that wheat can't run on solar panels.  Nor can the semi hauling it to the elevator.  Nor can the train hauling it to the processing stations to be turned into bread.  Well, maybe a few can.  But 98% of us would be dead of starvation and cold by then.

[kelownabomberfan]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2005/oct/12/naturaldisasters.climatechange1

Speaking of apocalyptic events, time is running out pretty fast on the UN and their prediction of 50 million "climate refugees" by 2020.  Only three more months to go!

[pigseye]

2 hours ago, Wideleft said:

So let me get this straight.

You claim that 25,000 years ago, we were 6 degrees warmer so everything will be fine even if we don't do a damn thing about climate change (neglecting human populations and their massive effects on drainage, water management, biodiversity etc.).

But also.

No one used petroleum products 125 years ago but it will be too inconvenient for us to change now.

That's not what I said at all, I said we are all ****** if natural variation can raise the temp 6C all on it's own.

There is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from going and living off the grid like a pioneer right now is there?

I wish all you greens would show us how it's done starting by turning off all your electronics, don't you agree? 

[pigseye]

2 hours ago, blue_gold_84 said:

No one is arguing the importance of petroleum in today's world; that was hardly the point. I said you made a garbage false equivalency, which you did.

That was exactly the point, it's almost as an important as a good dump, which you clearly need :) 

[kelownabomberfan]

I just wanted to say that I don't think that moving off of fossil fuels CAN'T be done, it's just going to take a long time and a lot of patience.  James Hansen is advocating for nuclear power, and I agree with him.  He's also taking issue with the current stance of the Democratic Party on man-made climate change.  If we can make electronic combines powered by nuclear power, I am all in.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/top-climate-scientist-to-bernie-sanders-youre-killing-people-in-india

[pigseye]

2 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Sure clean up the emissions, that is part of striving for carbon negative- couple it reducing and eventually replacing

I don't follow you, what else is there but the emissions problem? 

They've already come up with a new material that will split CO2 into CO and O, solving the GHG problem.

[Mark H.]

This would be a good place to spend carbon tax dollars:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/tree-planting-climate-change-1.5201102

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

20 minutes ago, Mark H. said:

This would be a good place to spend carbon tax dollars:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/tree-planting-climate-change-1.5201102

100% agree.

I would even go so far as to offer up a carbon tax fund to present to the Brazilian Government as an incentive to be good stewards of the Amazon. 

[Mark F]

27 minutes ago, Mark H. said:

This would be a good place to spend carbon tax dollars:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/tree-planting-climate-change-1.5201102

 

Over twenty five years we planted hundreds of trees in our yard (20 acres), the property is unrecognizeable now, from when we started.  Willows, Manitoba maple, white and black spruce, pines, siberian elms,(grew large, then died)  birch, poplar.... lot of work, keeping deer, rabbits , grass off them, and tent caterpillars,  pruning some,  watering them, moving them to better spots if need be, Some of them my wife grew from seed.

you can't just plant them and you're done in Manitoba, but we enjoyed doing it. one of the most satisfying things I've done.

If you have a low wet spot, plant some willows. It's amazing what they'll do to dry it out.

 

Edited September 24, 2019 by Mark F

[Mark H.]

32 minutes ago, Mark F said:

 

Over twenty five years we planted hundreds of trees in our yard (20 acres), the property is unrecognizeable now, from when we started.  Willows, Manitoba maple, white and black spruce, pines, siberian elms,(grew large, then died)  birch, poplar.... lot of work, keeping deer, rabbits , grass off them, and tent caterpillars,  pruning some,  watering them, moving them to better spots if need be, Some of them my wife grew from seed.

you can't just plant them and you're done in Manitoba, but we enjoyed doing it. one of the most satisfying things I've done.

If you have a low wet spot, plant some willows. It's amazing what they'll do to dry it out.

 

We have done the same in our Hutterite Colony.  Maple, Linden, Green Ash, Balsam Poplar, Blue Spruce, Birch & various fruit trees.  Our green ash have even spread seed into the nearby woods - ash are thriving amongst the wild poplar and oak.  We also have a firm policy to leave the wild oaks standing as much as possible - they thrive in almost every yard. 

[blue_gold_84]

3 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

One human being no.  7 billion - yes.

Humans have a biological need to defecate. Humans don't have an inherent need for fossil fuels.

That's the point you and pigseye keep missing. It was a shitty false equivalence - no pun intended.

2 hours ago, pigseye said:

That was exactly the point, it's almost as an important as a good dump, which you clearly need

That's rich coming from the guy constantly spewing diarrhea from his mouth as he trolls this thread and others. 

And in the spirit of discussion, there's way more that led to the boom of the human population in the 19th century than the discovery of fossil fuels. But I would expect someone as versed in climate studies as you purport to be to already know that.

[pigseye]

11 hours ago, blue_gold_84 said:

Humans have a biological need to defecate. Humans don't have an inherent need for fossil fuels.

That's the point you and pigseye keep missing. It was a shitty false equivalence - no pun intended.

We didn't miss anything, you are just oblivious to the need for petroleum products in todays world, they are just as needed as our biological functions. Now run along and take that dump that you so clearly need and come back when you are not so constipated. 

[Wideleft]

15 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

 What the climate apocalyptics really want is a mass human cull.  That would be the direct result of no more fossil fuels. 

That combine harvesting all of that wheat can't run on solar panels.  Nor can the semi hauling it to the elevator.  Nor can the train hauling it to the processing stations to be turned into bread.  Well, maybe a few can.  But 98% of us would be dead of starvation and cold by then.

Ridiculous.  The same people who are advocating for renewable energy are not the one's advocating for war or ignoring refugee crises.  They're the ones who have been fighting for humanity and the environment (they go hand in hand) for 50 years.  It's the Republicans and hard line conservatives who consider the poor and the non-whites expendable.  Your words are absolutely empty of any kind of truth.

There won't be any need for combines of any kind if crops don't grow because of extended droughts or flooding due to climate change.  

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

12 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

Ridiculous.  The same people who are advocating for renewable energy are not the one's advocating for war or ignoring refugee crises.  They're the ones who have been fighting for humanity and the environment (they go hand in hand) for 50 years.  It's the Republicans and hard line conservatives who consider the poor and the non-whites expendable.  Your words are absolutely empty of any kind of truth.

There won't be any need for combines of any kind if crops don't grow because of extended droughts or flooding due to climate change.  

Well said. 

[kelownabomberfan]

31 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

Ridiculous.  The same people who are advocating for renewable energy are not the one's advocating for war or ignoring refugee crises.  They're the ones who have been fighting for humanity and the environment (they go hand in hand) for 50 years.  It's the Republicans and hard line conservatives who consider the poor and the non-whites expendable.  Your words are absolutely empty of any kind of truth.

There won't be any need for combines of any kind if crops don't grow because of extended droughts or flooding due to climate change.  

extremely poorly said, and speaking of truth, I see none in what you wrote above. You have completely ignored the basic economics of how our society operates and based your entire argument on emotion.  The same people advocating for destroying our economy by immediately jumping to "renewables" (especially the never economic wind, solar and tidal power) are the same ones who can't do basic math, and should be kept as far away from the corridors of power as possible, as these are the people who are truly dangerous to the survival of mankind.

What did you think of James Hansen's comments and his calling out of Bernie Sanders?

Edited September 24, 2019 by kelownabomberfan

[Mark F]

37 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

 Your words are absolutely empty of any kind of truth.( I agree with this)

 

There won't be any need for combines of any kind if crops don't grow because of extended droughts or flooding due to climate change.  

 

  You mean like this?
 

Quote

 

Several ( 12) Manitoba rural municipalities declared a state of agricultural emergency Thursday, thanks to a severe drought in central Manitoba.

Twelve RMs, mostly in the Interlake and Parklands regions, declared the emergency after dry weather has left producers unable to produce enough hay to feed their cattle, among other problems.

Dianne Riding, VP of the Manitoba Beef Producers, said she likely won’t have enough feed for her 130 cows and is considering downsizing.

“We are on the second year of not having enough moisture,” she said. “Last year I had 500 bales of hay that we made, and this year I only have 250.”

In a normal year, her farm produces about 1,800 bales of hay, she added.

 

2019 Global news.

 

Edited September 24, 2019 by Mark F

[Wideleft]

8 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

extremely poorly said, and speaking of truth, I see none in what you wrote above. You have completely ignored the basic economics of how our society operates and based your entire argument on emotion.  The same people advocating for destroying our economy by immediately jumping to "renewables" (especially the never economic wind, solar and tidal power) are the same ones who can't do basic math, and should be kept as far away from the corridors of power as possible, as these are the people who are truly dangerous to the survival of mankind.

What did you think of James Hansen's comments and his calling out of Bernie Sanders?

Nature couldn't give a flying fork about your economics and literally no one has said we need to immediately jump to renewables. Literally everyone has been talking about a transition to green energy - it's the speed of transition that's up for debate even though we are already in transition.  Please try to be more honest about this.

[Mark F]

It's amusing to see a person who thinks there is little or no connection between climate change and burning fossil fuels, quoting with approval James Hansen.

[Wideleft]

1 minute ago, Mark F said:

 

  You mean like this?
 

2019 Global news.

 

Yes.  And this: 

"The Midwest flooding has killed livestock, ruined harvests and has farmers worried for their future.  Across parts of the Midwest, hundreds of livestock are drowned or stranded; valuable unsold, stored grain is ruined in submerged storage bins; and fields are like lakes, casting doubt on whether they can be planted this year."

 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/21/us/floods-nebraska-iowa-agriculture-farm-loss/index.html