Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Canuck100

Are humans really responsible for climate change?

Recommended Posts

On 7/31/2019 at 1:28 PM, dialamah said:

I know!  Let's throw our hands in the air and give up!

Look, the tide is coming in! We must stop it! Let's all rush to the edge of the ocean and push it back!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/31/2019 at 3:44 PM, dialamah said:

Punish us?  Maybe we should just take some responsibility, the thing that conservatives claim they're all about. 

The Western industrialized world are the worst offenders on a per capita basis because of our consumer lifestyle.  People in developing countries have a much smaller carbon footprint because most of them are so poor. 

The developing world is getting richer and richer, largely due to Capitalism, and developing a growing middle class. That's why CO2 levels have shot up, because of the huge addition of cars and trucks and motorcycles, of people with air conditioners and flat screen TVs and video games and microwaves. And to serve them all their governments are building coal fired power plants hand over fist.

You're blaming us for the energy we use while exempting them from rushing to join us. You want us to cut back while letting them continue to increase their carbon emissions.

Because it's fair.... boo hoo hooo.

I'm not willing to run our economy into the ground to make more room for developing countries to spew out more and more CO2. If you and the other progressive idiots want to walk around wringing your hands and wearing hair shirts and walking everywhere you go while heating your grass homes with cow dung, be my guest.

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Spiderfish said:

Wood heat is so nice, and it's a great way to dodge those punitive carbon taxes.  Puttin one over on the man...good job.

Using wood for heat is more carbon intensive than using fossil fuels...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

The narrative from the left is hopeless. They're not even sure what's more important to decreasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. Total CO2 production, or CO2 production per capita? :wacko:

That's not true. The most important goal is wealth redistribution from the west to the third world. They've been very clear on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Argus said:

Using wood for heat is more carbon intensive than using fossil fuels...

Yes I know, I didn't want to bring up the obvious.  He seems so angry already, no point in stoking the fire (groan).

I wonder if/when Trudeau is going to bring in a carbon self-audit, that would be required to be self-reported annually.  I'm sure it's only a matter of time before he realizes that these filthy wood burners are slipping through the carbon tax net and polluting for free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Spiderfish said:

Yes I know, I didn't want to bring up the obvious.

Care to show me the consensus on that?  Its not as obvious as you say.  Under the right conditions burning wood can get pretty close to CO2 neutrality.  I'm pretty certain I can cut most of the firewood I use within a wheelbarrow's push of my wood-stove which is a huge offset to the CO2 produced when shipping/importing coal, oil or gas to my house. I  can't produce any more CO2 than the trees I burn absorbed when growing and the conifers that I release to more sunlight will now grow bigger and eventually, albeit over a longer cycle than alder, reabsorb the same or more CO2 than the alder.  Not overnight but still in a virtual eyeblink compared to the millions of years it will take to reabsorb fossil fuel CO2 back into...well, there's a reason they call it fossil fuel.

Edited by eyeball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/31/2019 at 11:35 AM, DogOnPorch said:

 

As long as the Third World keeps having unlimited babies coupled with OTHER nation's unmitigated polluting...we're heading for Permian 2.0. Canada isn't to blame for this...but you'd like to punish us anyways...correct?

It is more of a second world problem - China in particular.  However, they ARE doing a lot to reduce emissions in general, just have to get trough the period of ultra-high emissions that every other developed nation did at this stage of development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, cannuck said:

It is more of a second world problem - China in particular.  However, they ARE doing a lot to reduce emissions in general, just have to get trough the period of ultra-high emissions that every other developed nation did at this stage of development.

 

That's nice: not Canada's fault. China had its chance to be modern First World nation right after WW2.

Mao happened instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cannuck said:

It is more of a second world problem - China in particular.  However, they ARE doing a lot to reduce emissions in general, just have to get trough the period of ultra-high emissions that every other developed nation did at this stage of development.

I don't think that's the case.  China has put a lot of effort into reducing those emissions that make everyone wear a mask and die young, but worldwide, I don't think they care much about CO2 levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I don't think that's the case.  China has put a lot of effort into reducing those emissions that make everyone wear a mask and die young, but worldwide, I don't think they care much about CO2 levels.

Like most countries at their highest levels of government.  As in the US and here I suspect most efforts to curb emissions in China result from local, city and provincial efforts.  No doubt they have to put up with a contradictory veto coming down from on high on occasion just like we do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, eyeball said:

Like most countries at their highest levels of government.  As in the US and here I suspect most efforts to curb emissions in China result from local, city and provincial efforts.  No doubt they have to put up with a contradictory veto coming down from on high on occasion just like we do.

I agree.  I think that's the way it's going to be the world over, with a few minor exceptions, until it's even more too late than it is now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

I agree.  I think that's the way it's going to be the world over, with a few minor exceptions, until it's even more too late than it is now.

The only way around it is to keep up efforts at the local levels which on occasion includes standing in the path of national efforts to go in opposite directions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The only way around it is to keep up efforts at the local levels which on occasion includes standing in the path of national efforts to go in opposite directions.

There I disagree.  There's nothing wrong with local efforts, when they make sense, but they haven't helped with the main problem so far, and I can't see them doing so in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

There I disagree.  There's nothing wrong with local efforts, when they make sense, but they haven't helped with the main problem so far, and I can't see them doing so in the future.

All I can say is I'm thankful the Tar Sands are here in Canada where local efforts to stop them from being exploited have half a chance of succeeding.  If the Tar Sands were in China or India the planet would be hopelessly screwed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, eyeball said:

All I can say is I'm thankful the Tar Sands are here in Canada where local efforts to stop them from being exploited have half a chance of succeeding.  If the Tar Sands were in China or India the planet would be hopelessly screwed.

Again, I think you place far to much significance on them.  If they didn't exist our problems would be the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Again, I think you place far to much significance on them.  If they didn't exist our problems would be the same.

I repeat Tar Sands oil is the very worst oil on the planet given the much higher amounts of CO2 it contains than conventional oil.  I get it that we still need to use fossil fuels but I don't get that we need to use the worst fossil fuel available.  Given what you're saying about the problem posed by growing populations in developing countries and especially irresponsibly governed countries it should be particularly troubling to you that these are who we intend to sell most of the Tar Sands oil to.

The greater significance I place on the Tar Sands is how exploiting them is so blatantly contrary to everything else we say about the need to curb CO2 emissions at global levels.  Putting the worst CO2 laden oil on the market signals a degree of vice that is simply unconscionable not to mention how really stupid it is.

Edited by eyeball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I repeat Tar Sands oil is the very worst oil on the planet given the much higher amounts of CO2 it contains than conventional oil.  I get it that we still need to use fossil fuels but I don't get that we need to use the worst fossil fuel available.  Given what you're saying about the problem posed by growing populations in developing countries and especially irresponsibly governed countries it should be particularly troubling to you that these are who we intend to sell most of the Tar Sands oil to.

The greater significance I place on the Tar Sands is how exploiting them is so blatantly contrary to everything else we say about the need to curb CO2 emissions at global levels.  Putting the worst CO2 laden oil on the market signals a degree of vice that is simply unconscionable.

Um, China's burning more and more coal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shady said:

Um, China's burning more and more coal.

Didn't your mother ever give you the talk about not jumping off bridges just because everyone else does?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I repeat Tar Sands oil is the very worst oil on the planet given the much higher amounts of CO2 it contains than conventional oil.  I get it that we still need to use fossil fuels but I don't get that we need to use the worst fossil fuel available.  Given what you're saying about the problem posed by growing populations in developing countries and especially irresponsibly governed countries it should be particularly troubling to you that these are who we intend to sell most of the Tar Sands oil to.

The greater significance I place on the Tar Sands is how exploiting them is so blatantly contrary to everything else we say about the need to curb CO2 emissions at global levels.  Putting the worst CO2 laden oil on the market signals a degree of vice that is simply unconscionable not to mention how really stupid it is.

If we simply upped and left the northeast of Alberta and never pulled another drop from the place, the relative changes that act would make to the atmospheric concentrations of CO2, given what would be used to replace it all, with the concomitant increase in production, shipping, and environmental costs, (based on the regulatory efficiency of the places from where it will be provided) make the whole idea far less than worthwhile.  Given the effect it would have on the Canadian economy.  We would simply be improving someone else's economy at the expense of ours.  For nothing, in my opinion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Didn't your mother ever give you the talk about not jumping off bridges just because everyone else does?

Didn't your mother ever give you the talk about fairness?  So the world's worst C02 emitter gets to continue to produce record amounts of C02, while we strangle our economy to curb our miniscule emissions.  Makes total sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

If we simply upped and left the northeast of Alberta and never pulled another drop from the place, the relative changes that act would make to the atmospheric concentrations of CO2, given what would be used to replace it all, with the concomitant increase in production, shipping, and environmental costs, (based on the regulatory efficiency of the places from where it will be provided) make the whole idea far less than worthwhile.  Given the effect it would have on the Canadian economy.  We would simply be improving someone else's economy at the expense of ours.  For nothing, in my opinion.

That's just to defeatist for my liking. I'm not willing to give up so easily on virtue in the struggle against vice.  Compared to the developing world we're in a position to better absorb the cost of being more virtuous.  This was after all the point of reducing our use of fossil fuels while allowing developing countries to catch up. I think is fair of us to demand better from the developing world in terms of their becoming more virtuous but exploiting the Tar Sands to facilitate that is a rather perverse way of doing so and sends the entirely wrong message at the worst possible time.

I realize this is a real struggle for people, I'm not oblivious to it.  But just imagine how much harder our grandkids will have to struggle if we don't.

Edited by eyeball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shady said:

Didn't your mother ever give you the talk about fairness?  So the world's worst C02 emitter gets to continue to produce record amounts of C02, while we strangle our economy to curb our miniscule emissions.  Makes total sense.

Yes, she also gave me the talk about rising above my baser instincts so I could perceive a bigger picture.

Opening up the biggest source of the worst oil to exploitation will make Canada the biggest emitter and hypocrite on the face of the planet in the history of inaction on climate change.  It makes no sense at all.

Edited by eyeball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Again, I think you place far to much significance on them.  If they didn't exist our problems would be the same.

The worldwide increase in CO2 emissions last year is the equivalent of 17 new oil sands. But don't expect the Left to consider the logic of their hysterical positions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a simple man. I see this I downvote :rolleyes:

Quote

The $20million climate change party: How Camp Google racked up an 800-tonne carbon footprint flying 'hypocritical' celebrities to environmental talking shop on 114 private jets to watch Coldplay and hang out on mega-yachts

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7311015/Google-splashes-20million-Italian-climate-change-party.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/2/2019 at 11:09 AM, eyeball said:

I repeat Tar Sands oil is the very worst oil on the planet given the much higher amounts of CO2 it contains than conventional oil.  I get it that we still need to use fossil fuels but I don't get that we need to use the worst fossil fuel available.  Given what you're saying about the problem posed by growing populations in developing countries and especially irresponsibly governed countries it should be particularly troubling to you that these are who we intend to sell most of the Tar Sands oil to.

The greater significance I place on the Tar Sands is how exploiting them is so blatantly contrary to everything else we say about the need to curb CO2 emissions at global levels.  Putting the worst CO2 laden oil on the market signals a degree of vice that is simply unconscionable not to mention how really stupid it is.

Not trying to be a jerk about this, but where do you get the idea that the Athabasca sands contain any significant CO2????  It contains a high percentage of carbon as these are long chain hydrocarbons (API grade under 10), but hydrocarbons are generally saturated with Hydrogen, so it then falls to the asphaltene content, which is not very high in the Ft. McMurray region (as it is in Lloyd/Cold Lake crudes that are, arguably, part of the Athabasca basin).  The really high carbon crudes are usually turned into pavement or upgraded to synthetic light crude (as does Syncrude, Suncor and Shell, not burned to MAKE CO2.

If you are looking for a heavy oil boogeyman, why not single out Orinoco crudes?  They are more cabon intense than Athabasca, but again, do NOT "contain" CO2.

Carbon dioxide is often a component in natural gas, but reservoirs that are at the opposite end of the spectrum seldom have much at all in the way of associated gas.

Edited by cannuck

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Guest
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.


×
×
  • Create New...