Climate Change Consensus?

[Mitch Cronin]

Your statement of "you need to think more" sounds quite typical of what I have heard from many in this discussion.

Hmmmmmm.... ....Hmmmmmmm ....? ....Could it be? ....

Woxof, if I may..... ( ) Your approach doesn't seem to answer any of the questions posed.

Your assumption that anyone who believes this issue is important must therefor agree that we should be sending trillions to dictators and despots, is in error.

One does not imply the other.

I think the whole carbon trading scheme is just another way to distribute funds to countries that will use them to procure all sorts of new contracts with global corporations... while governments up taxes to pay for it all. Meaning, of course, it's another way to distribute wealth among the wealthy at our expense. ....and I think it'll very likely have next to no impact on our global environment.

I do, however, think we need to follow up on the needed science, with sincerity and all the resources we can muster. Surely you can recognize the enormous resources available to those that could regret that process, and any change the forthcoming knowledge might suggest is necessary? If you think a bunch of greenies and socialists can mount a campaign, can you imagine the campaign the major 'multinational corporations' could wage? Do you not imagine it might already be at play? Their interests are very keen on this whole topic.

[handyman]

Global Warming and Pollution are two very different problems.

With Global Warming I believe we can do very little if anything about it and even the most exhaustive efforts will see insignificant benefit.

With Pollution (air, sea, noise and smell) I believe we can do lots but it should never be at the detriment of business and progress. I believe any and all development of cleaner technology should be Tax Free to encourage it's development. Then corporations that utilize this technology should be encouraged by tax credits for money spent on this technology.

A cleaner environment will happen if a little encouragement is used. Better to lead a dog to water than force it any day!

[chockalicious]

Credible? Reality?

There's your problem.

Goebbels had you in mind when he developed the modern concepts of propaganda. There are always two sides, even many sides, to any issue. Unless an article considers the various points of view, it is not necessarily credible or portraying "reality" (since reality can be a variable concept).

Goebbels, Really?

When all else fails invoke a Nazi.

It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[3][2]

[dagger]

Goebbels, Really?

When all else fails invoke a Nazi.

It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[3][2]

I pretty much felt this way the first time Woxof posted in this thread

[Mitch Cronin]

With Pollution (air, sea, noise and smell) I believe we can do lots but it should never be at the detriment of business and progress.

Hi Handyman.... Merry Christmas.

....I have a bit of trouble with that 'but' comment. First, one would have to define "progress" don't you think? ...and second; Business, as it stands, is forever in search of growth. Don't you think there could be a point at which our planet's health will need to be the higher priority? ...you said "never". ?

[Guest woxof]

For Mitch...there was one question I found asking me if what I was saying was that jobs that were outsourced for increased shareholder profit should return. What I was saying was that I am not interested in outsourcring jobs for this man made global warming theory, ESPECIALLY if it results in the same(or near the same) amount of carbon output.

Now perhaps you(or someone who feels something should be done just in case the skeptics are wrong) can answer a long ago question I posed multiple times on this thread. How much do you feel each Canadian household, on average, should pay per year to developing countries to as they say.....stop man-made global warming?

Thanks for your other comments.

I pretty much felt this way the first time Woxof posted in this thread

Yes...many of the supporters do feel this way about my hard hitting posts. Compared to nazis, child molesters, and all the other insults. I could reply in kind, but that of course...is not my style. Except Merry Christmas.

Woxof...perhaps it should be Galileo

[Mitch Cronin]

How much do you feel each Canadian household, on average, should pay per year to developing countries to as they say.....stop man-made global warming?

I did answer you woxof, you're not reading.

To answer again in plain English: If anthropogenic global warming is truly of concern, and If we can prevent further harm by paying developing countries money (a concept I do not understand, nor endorse otherwise), then I would think we should pay as much as we can. But as I have repeatedly said, I don't think that's any solution at all. So the question - which again, I have repeatedly said, is based on the erroneous assumption that; if I think anthropogenic global warming is a reality I must therefor agree with sending money to developing nations - is pointless, but HAS BEEN ANSWERED.

There remains some questions you haven't answered.... such as,

...What if you're wrong?

...and, are you considering the interests of the multinationals in this debate?

...are you considering their ability to influence the outcomes?

...are you considering the future well-being of the planet as second to the considerations of jobs and the health of major corporations?

...What solutions do you propose if anthropogenic global warming is indeed a reality?

[handyman]

Hi Handyman.... Merry Christmas.

....I have a bit of trouble with that 'but' comment. First, one would have to define "progress" don't you think? ...and second; Business, as it stands, is forever in search of growth. Don't you think there could be a point at which our planet's health will need to be the higher priority? ...you said "never". ?

Hi Mitch,

I think it's just an idea that needs to be developed into a working plan. For ease of discussing, let's say clean technology has levels such as 1,2,3,etc. We start on level 1 technology now and as the levels increase we force the lowest acceptable.

If we look at Computer Operating systems we would say that Windows 2000 is no longer supported and thus business or manufacturing must be at Windows XP level. However, if you upgrade to Windows 7, you will receive the upgrade cost Tax Free and maybe also receive an extra Tax Free credit for thanks. The company's that wait till they are forced onto Windows XP receive nothing!

Just an idea.

Take care and Merry Christmas.

Handyman

[Guest rattler]

Ontario's slipping date is for closing the last coal-fired generating station. The closures have already begun.

So what has Alberta done to reduce coal-fired emissions?

http://news.ontario.ca/mei/en/2009/09/onta...e-out-plan.html

And stop whining about separatism - woe is you. Your story rings as false as those of the Quebec separatists I grew up with. It's the old saw - everyone is always out to get you.

But here's the issue. Does Alberta get a special exception for oil sands emissions that will have to be made up outside its borders? If so, the wealth you claim to generate for all is an illusion because other provinces will have to apply carbon taxes and deeper carbon caps to make up for your SLACKERY.

Now, if you can make up the difference within Alberta, by closing coal-fired generating plants, by building an electric high speed train between edmonton and calgary, by taxing gasoline heavily so Albertans drive smaller cars, by giving everyone in the province a solar array to heat their homes, by making cows fart less, be my guest. The objections from me would disappear.

But you are not proposing that. All you propose is carbon capture, which is completely unproven and quite likely commercially unfeasible in the oil sands.

The end result is that with Harper's connivance, you are proposing to make the rest of Canada bear YOUR burden, not to mention the burden of an overvalued dollar which you can offset with oil royalties, but which kill export industries from coast to coast.

It is a REVERSE National Energy Program.

Like I said, do the off-setting within your borders, and this concern can go away. But it's not happening and with the Alberta government's attitude, it's not likely to happen.

Re coal burning plants. According to the CBC, they are not closing but simply changing their fuel.

Ontario coal-fired power plant to switch to biomass

Last Updated: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 | 8:53 AM ET Comments46Recommend56CBC News

Atikokan generating station, in operation since 1985, is 190 kilometres west of Thunder Bay, Ont. The coal-fired design is being converted to burn wood pellets. Ontario Power Generation is going to try to replace coal with biomass at a power-generating plant.

On Tuesday, OPG announced plans to convert the power plant in Atikokan, west of Thunder Bay, to burn wood pellets instead of coal by 2012.

It will then look at converting the three other coal-fired plants, including the giant Nanticoke plant on Lake Erie, to burn wood pellets, wheat husks or other plant material.

Ontario Energy Minister George Smitherman said the initiative could prevent the need to close the coal plants as promised by 2014.

"Biomass really does stand as one of the really great opportunities for green energy in the province of Ontario, because it burns so clean and our province is so big we seem to have it in vast supply," said Smitherman.

Environmentalists support the move, providing it doesn't mean the clear-cutting of forests or using plants for fuel that should be used as food.

[dagger]

Biomass is CO2 neutral according to the IPCC, but even if you say it's not, Atikokan is a tiny plant - 256 MW if I recall correctly. That's a piker. Even if they also convert Thunder Bay, it's another 400MW at best.

There isn't enough waste biomass to replace all the coal being consumed right now by the coal-fired plants. If you had bothered to read OPG's release, there are four coal units closing next year. No conversions. Closures.

[Guest woxof]

If anthropogenic global warming is truly of concern, and If we can prevent further harm by paying developing countries money (a concept I do not understand, nor endorse otherwise), then I would think we should pay as much as we can.

As much as we can? you mean every last extra cent we have beyond the minimal to survive which would literally be as much as we can? Hmmm...you must not mean that when you say as much as we can. Fortunately you put a couple of IF's in there.

But then again, seeing as the science is not finalized and won't be for a long time, it has been said...what if the skeptics are wrong? Well then, should we pay "as much as we can" just to make positively sure that we did something because the skeptics could be wrong?

We are being asked(or told) by the third world for hundreds of billions from Canada over the next 20 years. Woxof's opinion may be wrong so what is your answer today to these nations asking for all this money?

Only two questions for you and the second one is being demanded to us right now.

As for your questions...

1. If I am wrong, then apparently there will be no Arctic ice in 5 years according to Al Gore, a high chance of nuclear war according to Gwynn Dyer and a planet inundated by floodwater according to a recent study.

2. Multinationals are part of our economy. They employ many people(such as you) and are considered by myself in this debate as I use all my resources and available information to make a decision

3. I am considering the multinationals to influence "the outcomes". It sounds like you are hinting that most are trying to stop any climate change accord. If not, others have with talk about the evil capitalism. Look on this link at all the multinational signatories to this letter sent to the head of the U.N. urging immediate action. Bombardier, British Airways, Bristol-Myers, Coca-Cola, GE, Pepsi, SC Johnson and it goe on and on. Massive multinationals(over 500 signatories). So yes I have considered the effect of them.

http://www.copenhagencommunique.com/

4. Absolutely.

5. Birth control in the third world, electric cars, nuclear power and sacrifice by all not some.

Woxof...I love capitalism....within Reasonable rules.

[Guest rattler]

Biomass is CO2 neutral according to the IPCC, but even if you say it's not, Atikokan is a tiny plant - 256 MW if I recall correctly. That's a piker. Even if they also convert Thunder Bay, it's another 400MW at best.

There isn't enough waste biomass to replace all the coal being consumed right now by the coal-fired plants. If you had bothered to read OPG's release, there are four coal units closing next year. No conversions. Closures.

I did read it Dagger but evidently you didn't when you talk about none to convert to biomass, to quote the article.

Ontario Power Generation currently has 6,315 MW of coal-fired capacity provided by 15 units that operate at four plants across Ontario. Four coal units - Units 3 and 4 at Nanticoke and Units 1 and 2 at Lambton, with a combined capacity of 1,910 MW, will be permanently shut down in late 2010.

The closure of these four units is a step towards meeting Ontario's commitment to fight climate change - the elimination of coal-fired generation by the end of 2014.

Since 2003 coal-fired generation in Ontario has been decreasing. The closure of the coal-fired Lakeview Generating Station in 2005 eliminated carbon dioxide emissions equivalent to taking approximately 500,000 cars off Ontario roads.

Ontario Power Generation (OPG) will continue to reduce carbon dioxide emissions through an ongoing coal phase out plan which targets emissions from coal at 19.6 million tonnes in 2009 and 15.6 million tonnes in 2010. By 2011, coal electricity generation will be cut by two-thirds.

In the meantime, OPG is currently looking into the feasibility of converting some of its coal-fired units to burn biomass, with an initial focus on the potential for converting Atikokan to burn a renewable fuel by a target of 2012.

[dagger]

I did read it Dagger but evidently you didn't when you talk about none to convert to biomass,  to quote the article.

My typo. "Not" conversions.

[Fido]

It is estimated that if one includes Corporate tax, Royalties, Income Tax, GST etc then the Federal Government has more take home pay from the Oil Sands than does the Alberta Government.

[Guest rattler]

My typo. "Not" conversions.

4 units out of a promised 15. Hardly stellar.

Weren't all plants to close originally as early as 2006?

Regarding conversion, it seems that they are going ahead and no mention of the C02 cost to produce the biofuel and then the C02 emitted when burnt. No argument that using a renewable fuel is best but let's not confuse the use of renewable fuel and then not compare the emissions (C02 that is). Seems the plan is to burn wood pellets rather than coal, since we have lots of coal surely the smart way to go would be to do what Alberta has done and pioneer a low emission coal fired power plant or instead build more nuclear power plants as suggested in this report? http://www.business.ualberta.ca/Centres/CA...owEmission.ashx

Ontario coal-fired power plant to switch to biomass

Last Updated: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 | 8:53 AM ET Comments46Recommend56CBC News

Atikokan generating station, in operation since 1985, is 190 kilometres west of Thunder Bay, Ont. The coal-fired design is being converted to burn wood pellets. Ontario Power Generation is going to try to replace coal with biomass at a power-generating plant.

On Tuesday, OPG announced plans to convert the power plant in Atikokan, west of Thunder Bay, to burn wood pellets instead of coal by 2012.

It will then look at converting the three other coal-fired plants, including the giant Nanticoke plant on Lake Erie, to burn wood pellets, wheat husks or other plant material.

Ontario Energy Minister George Smitherman said the initiative could prevent the need to close the coal plants as promised by 2014.

"Biomass really does stand as one of the really great opportunities for green energy in the province of Ontario, because it burns so clean and our province is so big we seem to have it in vast supply," said Smitherman.

Environmentalists support the move, providing it doesn't mean the clear-cutting of forests or using plants for fuel that should be used as food.

[dagger]

4 units out of a promised 15. Hardly stellar.

Weren't all plants to close originally as early as 2006?

Regarding conversion, it seems that they are going ahead and no mention of the C02 cost to produce the biofuel and then the C02 emitted when burnt. No argument that using a renewable fuel is best but let's not confuse the use of renewable fuel and then not compare the emissions (C02 that is). Seems the plan is to burn wood pellets rather than coal, since we have lots of coal surely the smart way to go would be to do what Alberta has done and pioneer a low emission coal fired power plant or instead build more nuclear power plants as suggested in this report? http://www.business.ualberta.ca/Centres/CA...owEmission.ashx

Four more than Alberta, and not the first to close either. In 2005, they levelled they levelled the Lakeshore generating station.

I don't know the original planned closing date for all coal fired generating capacity but there is a goal, progress is being made towards it.

As for lower emission or cleaner coal technology, it doesn't exist. It might, but I don't see where the commitment is to get it done. I see it in the States - or are you going to sit on your ass and wait for the Americans to solve that for you too, so you can end up buying their technology.

[Guest rattler]

Four more than Alberta, and not the first to close either. In 2005, they levelled they levelled the Lakeshore generating station.

I don't know the original planned closing date for all coal fired generating capacity but there is a goal, progress is being made towards it.

As for lower emission or cleaner coal technology, it doesn't exist. It might, but I don't see where the commitment is to get it done. I see it in the States - or are you going to sit on your ass and wait for the Americans to solve that for you too, so you can end up buying their technology.

OMG and you accused me of being pompous. Dagger, as you may be into your cups,I will ignore any further posts from you this evening, following is some suggested reading for tomorrow.

Regarding us waiting for the US to produce something, again your reading / research ability is lacking or perhaps hindered by your blinders!

Following are a couple of quotes from an NEB report.

Currently, Alberta leads Canada in the development of new coal-fired generation. Keephills 3, a 450 megawatt (MW) power plant using the same supercritical-pressure pulverized coal combustion technology as Genesee 3, is currently under construction with an expected in-service date of early 2011. As well, there are planned capacity increases at a number of existing power plants in the province. On 12 October 2007 the Federal and Alberta governments undertook to partner with EPCOR Utilities Incorporated and the Canadian Clean Power Coalition (CCPC) in a $33 million research and development project that, if successful, could see a 500 MW IGCC plant in service as early as 2015.

The most recent coal-fired generator to be built in Canada is the Genesee 3 unit, near Edmonton, Alberta, which went into commercial operation on 1 March 2005. Genesee 3 is the first power plant in the country to use supercritical-pressure pulverized coal combustion technology. Almost all coal-fired generators use pulverized coal combustion technology, where the coal is ground to a fine powder before being burned to allow for more complete combustion. Genesee 3, unlike older units, heats water to supercritical temperature and pressure in its steam boiler, an advance that increases the efficiency of the power plant, reducing fuel consumption (and associated GHG emissions) by about 18 per cent compared to older coal-fired power plants. The unit is fitted with pollution control equipment and the operator has committed to buying carbon offsets to reduce the net GHG emissions from the facility to the level of a state of the art combined-cycle natural gas-fired facility.

While Genesee 3 is the first supercritical coal-fired unit in Canada, the technology is an evolutionary advancement of existing plants, and has been used in the United States, Europe and Asia. Thus supercritical coal-fired generation is seen as a low-risk option for new power plants.

http://www.neb.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rnrgynfmtn/nr...rtn-eng.html#s3

[Mitch Cronin]

Woxof,

I've already answered those questions. Once again... I believe we should do whatever we can to mitigate environmental disaster and to ensure the surviveability of future generations. If handing money to China is the way to accomplish that, then we should do just that. However, I don't believe that will accomplish anything of the sort. ...

...Now to address your answers:

1- "If I am wrong, then apparently there will be no Arctic ice in 5 years according to Al Gore, a high chance of nuclear war according to Gwynn Dyer and a planet inundated by floodwater "

...and these possibilities are ok with you?

2- ...I don't work for a multi-national corporation.

3- ...Re: "It sounds like you are hinting that most are trying to stop any climate change accord." This should show you exactly what I meant about how poorly you read into what others are writing... absolutely that is not what I'm "hinting". On the contrary, if you'd been reading and comprehending anything I've written, you'd know that I'm certain multinational corporations have a huge vested interest in this issue and very likely love the carbon trading game. I'm sure they're all quite pleased with very weak, essentially meaningless accords.

4- To the query:

...are you considering the future well-being of the planet as second to the considerations of jobs and the health of major corporations?

, you replied:

4. Absolutely.

Are you sure you understood the question?

If you did, then you've pretty much admitted you'd devastate the planet if you believed it necessary to permit your own survival. You'd have identified your interest as being purely selfish. Which would mean your voice in this matter is worth only one in 6.8 billion.

Many of us are trying to take our undeniable responsibility to future generations seriously, so in effect, we carry their billions of voices as well. If we don't leave the world in any condition for them to survive, we'd be guilty of a more heinous crime than ever before committed on this earth.... and we wouldn't deserve to survive it ourselves.

5- Birth control in the third world? But you also said "sacrifice by all not some"? Which way would you like it?

I don't think you're a bad guy woxof. I just think you've misread a lot, and you've made a lot of assumptions in error.

Have a Merry Christmas.

Mitch

[Lakelad]

As for lower emission or cleaner coal technology, it doesn't exist. It might, but I don't see where the commitment is to get it done. I see it in the States - or are you going to sit on your ass and wait for the Americans to solve that for you too, so you can end up buying their technology.

sure, whatever you say....

[Guest rattler]

I continue to doubt Global Warming / Climate change only on the basis that "Cap & Trade or Carbon trading" is not any way to go, it is simply a program to move money around and enrich some at the cost of others. The program yields absolutely no measurable results in the elimination of pollution.

Even if the whole thing (climate warming / climate change) is a hoax, there is absolutely no reason why we should not endeavour to clean up our act, by us I mean the entire world. Those who believe Canada should be out there leading the charge and standing up as a example are naive if they believe that anything we do will influence the worst polluting nations or indeed have any effect except on our pocket books.

That being said there is no reason we (and this time I mean Canadians) can not work, based on a reasonable time line, to clean up our own back yard.

[Fido]

Four more than Alberta,

Let's see

GoldBar converted to methane from the sewage plant

The original Wabamum decommissioned

Genesee built for coal gasification

Rossdale in Edmonton decommissioned

.....any others?

[Moon The Loon]

I continue to doubt Global Warming / Climate change only on the basis that "Cap & Trade or Carbon trading" is not any way to go, it is simply a program to move money around and enrich some at the cost of others. The program yields absolutely no measurable results in the elimination of pollution.

Even if the whole thing (climate warming / climate change) is a hoax, there is absolutely no reason why we should not endeavour to clean up our act, by us I mean the entire world. Those who believe Canada should be out there leading the charge and standing up as a example are naive if they believe that anything we do will influence the worst polluting nations or indeed have any effect except on our pocket books.

That being said there is no reason we (and this time I mean Canadians) can not work, based on a reasonable time line, to clean up our own back yard.

Apples and oranges. Global warming vs man-made environmental pollution. Two separate and, in my opinion, unrelated subjects.

[DEFCON]

Why is what may very well be, the real answer to the energy issue so ignored?

[E-HANDLE]

As for lower emission or cleaner coal technology, it doesn't exist. It might, but I don't see where the commitment is to get it done. I see it in the States - or are you going to sit on your ass and wait for the Americans to solve that for you too, so you can end up buying their technology.

Sit on our ass indeed.

Calgary company helps deal with Ontario garbage.

http://www.stockhouse.com/tools/?page=%2FF...ewsid%3D7483834

Beats barging it to the U.S.

[13820]

The Nanticoke Generating Station is the largest coal-fired power plant in North America, delivering up to 3,964 MW[1] of power into the southern Ontario power grid from its base in Nanticoke, Ontario, Canada. Nanticoke Generating Station is owned by Ontario Power Generation—formerly Ontario Hydro—which, in turn, is 100% owned by the Government of Ontario. It was scheduled for decommission in early 2009 as part of the Ontario commitment to eliminate coal power, but this has been repeatedly delayed and is currently unlikely to occur before 2014, assuming new nuclear power plants are available at that time.