Climate Change

[ShockNAwww]

No need to put jobs at risk at least at the beginning of the move
away from fossil fuel. Just place a ban of import of crude oil from
the Middle East to the eastern coast. Climate sheeple in Ontario
will be begging Alberta to postpone oil production capping for
several years if not one decade.

I’m gonna go out on a limb and ask where in that equation do you see Canada meeting let alone exceeding its carbon emission reduction targets with this scheme?

Because the train left the station decades ago if you’re hoping the rest of Canada is suddenly going to forget climate science and trust anyone in the industry to dictate terms on Canada’s ecological future.

 

[shack]

Give me a current alternative to fossil fuel that is as plentiful, as reliable and as inexpensive? You can't.

Have you heard of this place called the future, where things are different than they are now because knowledge and technology have progressed from where we are now? I'm sure that you can think of hundreds of things in our lives today that no one could have imagined possible 100 or 150 years. This is the same concept. We don't exactly what, but history has shown us that mankind continues to make innovation a routine occurrence.

With continued R&D it is guaranteed that there will be alternatives. There may not be 1 single source that delivers what fossil fuel does now, but what is wrong with a combination of sources as alternatives. Add them together and you can take a big chunk out of fossil fuel usage.

And who says that fossil fuels have to be completely eliminated? What if we cut their usage down to only 10 or 20% of where they are now?

Seriously KD, it's not a difficult concept to understand and embrace.

 

[oil&gas]

I’m gonna go out on a limb and ask where in that equation do you see Canada meeting let alone exceeding its carbon emission reduction targets with this scheme?

Because the train left the station decades ago if you’re hoping the rest of Canada is suddenly going to forget climate science and trust anyone in the industry to dictate terms on Canada’s ecological future.

I suggested putting a ban on crude import to Canadian eastern coast
in my post. You don't think that will drastically reduce carbon emission
than empty talks of capping oil and gas emission? You can expect
opposition from climate change believers and deniers alike to such
scheme though.

 

[oil&gas]

And who says that fossil fuels have to be completely eliminated? What if we cut their usage down to only 10 or 20% of where they are now?

Not only fossil fuels cannot be completely eliminated, it is next to
impossible to make every one cut their gas usage by 10 to 20%
voluntarily You vision of usage reduction to 10 or 20% is not going
to happen until world fossil fuel resources are nearly 100% depleted.

 

[basketcase]

thanks for the information, I am sure it is true I wonder though why they dont talk about it anymore? when I was kid it was on the news all the time, i guess we solved the problem for the most of it

Or you can keep pretending it was all a conspiracy theory and the deep state has spent billions to perpetuate the plot.

 

[basketcase]

You need an energy source to move materials. There are current and future alternatives to fossil fuel.

So, once again, materials and fossil fuel are two different issues.

To be fair, much of our society is based on plastics which generally came from fossil fuels. There are alternatives but cost and production capacities are issues as are problems with durability. There are companies producing bioplastics which are practically identical but they do put pressure on food supplies and are more energy intensive that refining from oil.

 

[basketcase]

Worthless poll that means exactly nothing....

Translation: the majority of people disagree with you so it must be wrong.

 

[basketcase]

OK. You can ask in Ontario: "Do you support transition to zero emissions economy?" I don't know the answer, but I'm betting that the support would be quite high. But, then ask : "Would you agree to pay $3/l(to pick a low number) for gasoline to achieve it?" . The point is, it's easy to reach a desired answer by posing a general question to responders with nothing on the line. Put a value on it that they can calculate and the outcome will always be different. Hence, the poll commissioned by the Globe is worthless- click bait at best.

Thankfully every polling agency publishes their raw data so you don't have to rely on the article.

https://nanos.co/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/2021-2012-Globe-October-Populated-Report-Emissions-with-Tabs.pdf

 

[basketcase]

Hmm. Several hundred years ago the science was settled on the shape of the Earth, too.

Still is. No one in educated circles has thought the Earth flat for thousand of years. More than 2000 years ago, Eratosthenes even was able to calculate the circumference of the Earth to within a couple percent. But thanks to internet conspiracy kooks, society is getting dumber.

But Flat Earthers and Climate change deniers have a lot in common.

 

[basketcase]

Give me a current alternative to fossil fuel that is as plentiful, as reliable and as inexpensive? You can't.

A couple hundred years ago, you would have been demanding an alternative to human manual labour that is as plentiful, reliable, and abundant. Society changes as technology changes.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

This is the first year that I've noticed weather has gotten warmer.

Still too small of a sample size though

 

[NotADcotor]

But Flat Earthers and Climate change deniers have a lot in common.

I've seen the giant cats at the edge of the earth knocking things off the edge. If you want a threat to our existence that is it. Just a matter of time before they run out of stuff at the edges and they start working their way inwards to our cities and infrastructure.
They are really cute though, if one must die being swiped off the earth's edge by a kitty is a good way to go.

True story.

 

[Frankfooter]

Climate change, before that it was called Global warming. Are any of you old enough to remember the "acid Rain" scare of the 1970's and 80's////basically it was saying ontario forests and many lakes in muskoka are dead lakes because of this........then we didnt hear anything...I googled what happened

Remember the big “acid rain” scare during the 1970s and 1980s attributing damage to lakes and forests to emissions from Midwestern utilities? If so, did you ever hear the results of a more than half-billion-dollar, 10-year-long national Acid Precipitation Assessment Program study that was initiated in 1980 to research the matter?

Probably not.

As it turned out, those widespread fears proved to be largely unfounded, since only one species of tree at a high elevation suffered any notable effect, and acidity in lakes was traced to natural causes. The investigating scientists reported that they had “turned up no smoking gun; that the problem is far more complicated than it been thought; that other factors combine to harm trees; and that sorting out the cause-and-effect was difficult and in some cases impossible.”

Acid rain was dealt with through government policies forcing companies to add scrubbers and lessen pollution.
Scientists reported on it, government acted and it was dealt with.

Same with the Ozone issue, scientists reported, governments banned some chemicals and the problem is under control.

Two great examples of environmental problems reported by scientists and fixed by government action.
Now if only we'd listen to them on climate change instead of the people who keep posting oil industry disinformation.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

If the next 5 to 10 years Decembers are as mild as it currently is, then I'll become a global warming believer

 

[oil&gas]

Thankfully every polling agency publishes their raw data so you don't have to rely on the article.

https://nanos.co/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/2021-2012-Globe-October-Populated-Report-Emissions-with-Tabs.pdf

Results of the poll in your link:

Two in three Canadians are good with
immediately limiting greenhouse-gas emissions
from the oil and gas sector, even if it puts jobs at
risk.

has little merit. Immediately limiting emission from the oil and gas
sector does not necessarily translate to immediate reduction of GHG
emission on the part of the individuals polled. How many of you are
ready to drive less starting tomorrow?

 

[oil&gas]

Translation: the majority of people disagree with you so it must be wrong.

Majority of people polled would have said no to limiting
GHG emission if the question was changed from immediate
emission cut in the oil and gas sector to immediate cut
of their gasoline usage.

 

[oil&gas]

Deny the facts and blame the source is always a good tactic when you have no valid argument.

So are you saying that the Globe falsified the responses to the poll. They lied about the Nanos finding? They lied about 2/3 of Canadians wanting gas emissions caps?

They didn't lie. They just fooled readers to believe 2/3 of Canadians were foolish
enough to volunteer capping their own gas emission. I suspect most of the people
who responded to the poll were idiots who couldn't understand GHG is mainly
produced from burning oil and gas not by its extraction process.

 

[Frankfooter]

They didn't lie. They just fooled readers to believe 2/3 of Canadians were foolish
enough to volunteer capping their own gas emission. I suspect most of the people
who responded to the poll were idiots who couldn't understand GHG is mainly
produced from burning oil and gas not by its extraction process.

Why don't you try to poll BC to see whether they prefer forest fires and floods to utilities going renewable and the government subsidizing EV's.