Sign in to follow this  
Malcolm

Climate Change?

Recommended Posts

Quote

To sell Canadians on the merits of his carbon tax plan, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau staged a media event in late October before a group of high school students at the National Gallery in Ottawa. His backdrop was a wall-size image of Cathedral Grove #1, a beautiful but dark-hued interior view of a boreal forest on Vancouver Island taken in 2017 by famed Canadian landscape photographer Edward Burtynsky.

So if Trudeau is so concerned about the environment and cites BC as a province leading the way with its carbon tax, opposition to dirty oil and pipelines, tanker traffic, and protection of the environment.....where is his government on deforestation of old growth forests (as well as coal exports).

The Sierra club is now stating the logging in BC will rival that of deforestation of the Amazon rain forest and that these old growth forests store more carbon than any other forests, per hectare.

https://globalnews.ca/video/4814035/disturbing-claim-about-deforestation-in-b-c-2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, st27 said:

So if Trudeau is so concerned about the environment and cites BC as a province leading the way with its carbon tax, opposition to dirty oil and pipelines, tanker traffic, and protection of the environment.....where is his government on deforestation of old growth forests (as well as coal exports).

The Sierra club is now stating the logging in BC will rival that of deforestation of the Amazon rain forest and that these old growth forests store more carbon than any other forests, per hectare.

https://globalnews.ca/video/4814035/disturbing-claim-about-deforestation-in-b-c-2

RE deforestation in BC.  That is followed by replanting so no net loss.  Old trees do need to be harvested and the undergrowth removed as one of the major ways of preventing forest fires.  The new planting then goes on to provide sustained timber crops. 

Reforestation in B.C.

Friday, April 7, 2017 10:30 AM
Media Contacts
Media Relations
Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations
250 356-5261
 

British Columbia prides itself on being a world leader in sustainable forest management. Since specific reforestation programs began in the 1930s, over 7.5 billion trees have been planted.

  • About 80%[1] of harvested areas are reforested by planting; the balance through natural regeneration.
  • On average, about 218 million seedlings are planted each year in British Columbia.
  • In 2016, about 259 million trees were planted and, for 2017, about 266 million trees are planned to be planted.
  • The Forests for Tomorrow program deals with reforestation challenges created by B.C.’s unprecedented mountain pine beetle infestation and increasingly severe wildfire seasons.
  • Since its inception in 2005, Forests for Tomorrow has invested over $445 million in reforestation activities, surveyed approximately 1.7 million hectares in mountain pine beetle affected areas and planted more than 193 million seedlings on over 138,000 hectares.
  • Through the Forests for Tomorrow program about 17 million seedlings were planted in 2016 and approximately 22 million seedlings will be planted in 2017.
  • It is estimated that since 2005, the trees planted by Forests for Tomorrow will result in the sequestration of about 19 million tonnes of carbon. In the past eight years, carbon sequestration has averaged about two million tonnes per year.
  • In 2016, government invested $85 million in the newly formed Forest Enhancement Society of B.C. and provided another $150 million to the society in 2017.
  • The society’s goals are to advance environmental and resource stewardship of British Columbia’s forests by:
    • preventing and mitigating the impact of wildfires
    • improving damaged or low-value forests
    • improving habitat for wildlife
    • supporting the use of fibre from damaged and low-value forests
    • treating forests to improve the management of greenhouse gases
  • British Columbia uses a mix of over 20 different native tree species in its reforestation programs. This mix of tree species helps maintain ecosystem processes, resilience and diverse habitats.
  • Licensees are legally required to reforest the areas that they harvest. This has been the law in B.C. since Oct. 1, 1987.
  • Sites being planted by Forests for Tomorrow are strategically selected so they deliver multiple benefits:
  • Contributing to the future timber supply and ecological integrity.
  • Addressing environmental values like soil and hydrology.
  • Providing employment.
  • By relying on a broad range of scientific knowledge and latest research, Forests for Tomorrow is developing effective reforestation strategies and revitalizing British Columbia’s forest landscapes.

 

[1] Based on the recent 10-year average area reforested  by planting as compared to the area reforested through natural regeneration and classified as non-productive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada may already be carbon neutral, so why are we keeping it a secret?

F. Larry Martin: A conservative estimate of Canada’s existing carbon-absorption capacity indicates we could already be absorbing 20 to 30% more CO2 than we emit

Here’s a seemingly simple question: Is Canada a net carbon dioxide emitter? You would think so from reading news headlines. We’ve earned the scorn of environmentalists, NGOs, and media outlets galore, labelled with such juvenile epithets as “fossil of the year” or “corrupt petro-state.”

Sadly, lost in all the hyperbole is the actual science. There is nothing quantitative about the vague idea that, as a “progressive nation,” Canada should be expected to “do more” to fight climate change.

But therein lies the rub; Canada is poised to immediately do more to combat climate change than almost every other country in the world. How, you ask? Well, by doing more of the same. If that sounds ludicrous, let me explain.

Most Canadians would agree that our response to climate change needs to be scientifically sound, environmentally sustainable and financially realistic, as well as global, comprehensive, and holistic. Right now, our approach is none of those things; the public discourse is driven by a myopic, ideological obsession with carbon emissions alone. What else is there, you ask?

The answer comes from the most recent report (2014) of the Global Carbon Project, which states that global human-induced CO2 emissions were 36 billion tonnes. Of that, 36 per cent stayed in the atmosphere, 27 per cent was absorbed by water, and 37 per cent was absorbed by land.

 

 

A conservative estimate of Canada’s existing carbon-absorption capacity, based on land area and the global carbon-absorption average, indicates that Canada could already be absorbing 20 to 30 per cent more CO2 than we emit. Using the same calculation, the “Big Four” polluters of China, the U.S., the European Union, and India, which together are responsible for a whopping 60 per cent of global CO2 emissions, release 10 times more CO2 than their combined land area absorbs. Canada doesn’t seem very dirty now, do we?

So when was the last time you heard a Canadian political leader, let alone the media, talk about our carbon-absorption capacity? Probably never, because we are currently ignoring that side of the equation, for a couple reasons.

First, there is insufficient political will. The government’s top experts need a mandate to pursue in-depth measurement of CO2 absorption. Recently, Canada’s federal and provincial auditors general announced a joint audit of the country’s carbon emissions. But what credible audit would examine only half a balance sheet? There’s no reason why they shouldn’t audit our absorption capacity, too. How much CO2 did our forests and land absorb? Do some trees and topographies perform better than others? In short, what is Canada’s carbon balance?

Second, it’s contrary to the interests of urbanized, overpopulated, deforested places in Europe, Asia & the Middle East to allow vast, sparsely populated, forested countries like Canada to set the climate change agenda. It doesn’t help them whatsoever for Canada to claim our fair share of the world’s carbon absorption capacity, and emerge as one of the planet’s climate leaders.

If Europe and our other traditional “Western Allies” won’t acknowledge the free ride that we are providing them by protecting our forests and thus subsidizing their emissions, it’s time for Canada to find climate allies who understand us and share our needs. It’s time for some Green Realpolitik.

We should seek out new alliances with other large, forested countries, starting with Russia, Brazil, Democratic Republic of Congo, Argentina, Indonesia, and Peru. These countries, and many others, will all benefit from a new approach that rewards carbon absorption, and would bring diverse cultural voices and political interests together around this important climate issue.

Many people in these countries have to choose between their forests and their livelihoods, as they scramble to survive the day. Some of them still clear-cut or burn their forests for the sake of agriculture or industry. But what if they no longer had to choose between planet and profit?

Imagine the kind of eco-friendly economy that DRC Congo, Peru, or any other forested country could build by generating carbon credits to sell to Dubai, Singapore, or Luxembourg. Countries on the receiving end of cap-and-trade credits could build entire green economies around conservation, not consumption. Financial pressure to deforest would subside, replaced with incentives to manage our forests and preserve their attendant ecosystems. As a bonus, Canada and its new, green allies could label all our exports as “proudly carbon neutral.”

Imagine, too, the possibilities for indigenous people all over the world to leverage their traditional role as protectors of the environment into a feasible economic opportunity. We are constantly looking for ways to bridge gaps between modern society and native cultures, so why not empower indigenous people to take on a leadership role as stewards of the world’s precious forests?

Canada must successfully lobby for a world market on carbon-offset credits, where CO2 absorption is part of the equation. The potential impact is huge. Based on the aforementioned estimates of our absorption capacity, and a conservative CO2 price of $40/tonne, Canada stands to gain $10 billion per year. Think about it; we might currently be giving away $10 billion to the rest of the world, including the Big Four polluters, every year, for free.

$10 billion dollars in our coffers could go a long way toward balancing the budget, investing in sustainable energy, providing social programs, incentivizing innovation, renewing infrastructure, and generally improving Canada’s fortunes. So when Prime Minister Trudeau meets with provincial, territorial, and indigenous leaders, he owes it to Canadians to put this issue on the agenda. The only thing we’re really asking is for our leaders to consider the entire carbon cycle, from emission to absorption, in order to get the “balance sheet” right. Then, and only then, can our best minds get to work on making a climate plan that is fair for all Canadians, and that reflects our true contribution to the world’s climate solution.

It would be nice to end on that hopeful note, but the realistic future looks rather bleak. The prime minister thus far seems content to position himself as a goodwill ambassador to the UN and Europe, not someone who will go toe to toe with them to defend Canadian interests. Meanwhile, our other leaders are falling victim to their own political ideologies. Rachel Notley wants to kick Albertans while they’re down with a new tax, Manitoba’s Greg Sellinger thinks he can magically reverse flooding via taxation, and Ontario’s recent climate initiative is a case study in the myopic, emissions-only approach to cap-and-trade. Quebec mayors like Montreal’s Coderre blindly oppose the Energy East pipeline, forsaking the memory of those who died in Lac Mégantic due to the dangers of transporting oil by train.

Taxing Canadians to try to make planet Earth greener is futile policy based on a half-blind approach that only considers emissions from our resources, not absorption from our land and forests. Unless we change that perspective, the inevitable result is a drag on our economy with job casualties, increased costs, and lost business opportunities, ultimately weakening Canada’s ability to compete on the international stage. And for what do we sell out our future? To let the Big Four polluters off the hook? To be popular with delegates in Copenhagen or Paris?

By taking credit for absorption, we win. By negotiating a robust cap-and-trade deal between nations, we win. By working with countries that share our interests, we win. By getting the credit we deserve, and ensuring that the planet’s real polluters pay their fair share, we win. So, the question is, why do we let our leaders set Canada up to fail?

With a simple mandate from government to factor in the entire carbon cycle, our best scientific minds can get to work assembling the evidence to create an appropriate, progressive climate policy for Canada.

F. Larry Martin served as deputy minister to the premier of Saskatchewan, and assistant deputy minister of rural development and intergovernmental affairs in Manitoba. He is retired and lives in Canmore, Alta.

That’s right — absorbed by land! Not all CO2 emitted by people stays in the atmosphere. Much of it returns to the earth, mainly through the carbon absorption and sequestration power of plants, soil, and trees.

 

https://financialpost.com/opinion/canada-may-already-be-carbon-neutral-so-why-are-we-keeping-it-a-secret

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been saying this since the whole carbon tax thing started.  Canada is a Net Negative carbon producing country.  Why should we pay for the carbon positive countries?

Let us keep the money and put it into the economy.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far only one political party has promised to derail this insanity train. It’s time to think long and hard how much you want to be needlessly taxed. This will definitely be the main issue heading into the election. Vote accordingly.

A20636EF-12D5-4A4C-B5AC-4D819B32D50A.jpeg

Edited by Jaydee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious to see if the canadian government will actual repeal a tax.  not sure its ever actually been done

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trudeau is deaf to any carbon/ghg reduction programs unless it includes a tax....he is adamant that SK/Ont/Mb will not reach the targets, only his tax will work. Even though his own experts say it won’t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The carbon tax, like the HST before it, is just another wealth redistribution plot introduced by a rather unimpressive scheming wannabe communist.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎4‎/‎2019 at 12:07 PM, boestar said:

if you want to cure the disease you need to kill the infection.

 

Thanos had a point.

 

Unfortunately, profitable widescale conflicts have been out of fashion for a while, HIV didn't take hold, and they found a vaccine for ebola. 🙈🙉🙊

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GIVE ME THE GLOVE....i WILL SNAP MY FINGERS

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

U.S. greenhouse gas emissions spiked in 2018 — and it couldn’t happen at a worse time

 
‎Today, ‎January ‎8, ‎2019, ‏‎2 hours ago | Washington Post

U.S. carbon dioxide emissions rose an estimated 3.4 per cent in 2018, according to new research — a jarring increase that comes as scientists say the world needs to be aggressively cutting its emissions to avoid the most devastating effects of climate change.

The findings, published Tuesday by the independent economic research firm Rhodium Group, mean that the United States now has a diminishing chance of meeting its pledge under the 2015 Paris climate agreement to dramatically reduce its emissions by 2025.

The findings also underscore how the world’s second-largest emitter, once a global leader in pushing for climate action, has all but abandoned efforts to mitigate the effects of a warming world. U.S. President Donald Trump has said he plans to officially withdraw the nation from the Paris climate agreement in 2020 and in the meantime has rolled back Obama-era regulations aimed at reducing the country’s carbon emissions.

“We have lost momentum. There’s no question,” Rob Jackson, a Stanford University professor who studies emissions trends, said of both U.S. and global efforts to steer the world toward a more sustainable future.

The sharp emissions rise was fueled primarily by a booming economy, researchers found. But the increase, which could prove to be the second-largest in the past 20 years, probably would not have been as stark without Trump administration rollbacks, said Trevor Houser, a partner at Rhodium.

“I don’t think you would have seen the same increase,” Houser said, referring to the electric power sector in particular.

Emissions from electric power generation rose 1.9 per cent in 2018, the analysis found, driven chiefly by more demand for electricity, which was largely satisfied by more burning of natural gas. This fuel emits less greenhouse gas than coal when burned but is still a major contributor overall.

At the same time, emissions from the transportation sector rose 1 per cent thanks to more airline travel and greater on-road shipping. Industrial emissions from factories and other major facilities also rose significantly in 2018, the analysis found.

The figures, based on data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration and other sources, remain an estimate because some data from last year is not finalized. But the trend line is consistent with a recent estimate from a group of academics associated with the Global Carbon Project, which found U.S. emissions likely to rise 2.5 per cent in 2018.

Rising emissions are not just a U.S. problem. Global emissions also reached a record high in 2018, and the increase in the United States goes hand in hand with rising emissions in other countries, such as China and India, said Michael Mehling, deputy director of the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

“It’s not an isolated phenomenon,” Mehling said, adding that the trend makes it difficult to solely blame the Trump administration’s deregulatory push and its dismissal of climate action for the change. “Such political developments, including the rollback of domestic climate policies in the U.S., tend to have a considerable lead time before you can actually see their reflection in physical emission trends.”

The latest growth makes it increasingly unlikely that the United States will achieve a pledge made by the Obama administration in the run-up to the Paris climate agreement, that the country would reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 per cent below 2005 levels by the year 2025.

A large part of President Barack Obama’s plan for meeting that goal turned on key climate policies, including new regulations for vehicle fuel efficiency and power plants. These policies alone were not enough – the United States has never been on target to fulfill its Paris promises. But the Trump administration has moved to reverse or weaken them.

U.S. emissions have declined somewhat since 2005 because of technological changes, such as the dwindling of coal-fired power generation in the face of surging natural gas and the growth of renewable energy. In a major international climate change meeting in Poland last month, the Trump administration hailed a 14 per cent decline in emissions from 2005 levels.

But that’s barely half of what the Obama administration was promising by 2025. And the 14 per cent figure has shrunk based on the latest findings. The result is that any chance of hitting the original Obama goal has diminished, said the Rhodium Group’s Houser.

The latest emissions data comes as the world’s scientists have called the global climate problem more urgent than previously thought – making the United States’ emissions trends and its path to withdraw from the Paris agreement more consequential.

In October, a United Nations-backed panel of nearly 100 scientists offered a detailed accounting of what it would take to limit planetary warming to just 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) – with the world already experiencing a 1 degree Celsius increase. They found not only that going beyond 1.5 degrees Celsius would have devastating impacts, but also that the world has only about a decade to make the “unprecedented” changes necessary to hold warming at this level.

At the Poland climate meeting, the United States joined three countries to oppose a proposal to embrace the study from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. All were economies heavily reliant on fossil fuels – Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Russia.

Just as scientists have made clear the world needs to act with urgency, the United States has headed in the opposite direction. In 2020, even as many other countries have said they intend to ramp up their climate ambitions, the Trump administration is expected to be poised to complete its planned withdrawal from the Paris agreement.

In the United States, “it’s very unlikely that anything will happen with setting new targets or moving on climate by 2020,” said Johan Rockström, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. “Which is a big risk, given that we have to bend the curve by 2020.”

In Poland, countries decided to acknowledge the report’s “timely completion” but removed a prior reference to its most inconvenient finding – that a world responsible for more than 50 billion tons of total carbon dioxide equivalent emissions in 2018 must make a monumental shift in the course of the coming decade.

“What you’ve got is the United States on the top of a pyramid of fragmentation and creating space to legitimize that type of behaviour on the part of other countries,” said David Wirth, a former climate negotiator who is now a law professor at Boston College.

The key issue now is how all of this plays out over the next two years, leading up to 2020. That is both the year when the United States can formally exit the Paris climate agreement and the year when member countries need to announce more-ambitious climate plans.

That leaves a world facing a make-or-break decade for emissions reductions still unsure of exactly what role the United States will play, if any.

“Other countries are going to be looking at the [2020 presidential] campaign,” Wirth said. “If you’ve got all presidential candidates with the exception of one running for election saying, ‘I’m prepared to commit to bigger reductions,’ then that will resonate.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

based on that picture alone.  Who should be paying a carbon tax?  Certainly not Canadians

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great Rant from some guy from Alberta....

 

 

                       

               I'm Mike, I'm from Camrose

“ We have a great country, we just need leadership.  Not touchy, feely leadership BUT real leadership for all of Canada.  Quebec has $7 per day daycare, guess who is paying for that?  $2.3 billion in so called Equalization payments from out of Federal Tax Dollars.  For shame

I ask, what is wrong with our politicians?  Are they stupid before we elect them or do they turn stupid after?  Reports are that we are losing $80,000,000.00 dollars per day because we can not get our product to market.  How utterly stupid.  How many hospitals, schools, roads etc. etc. could be built with this money?  All this held up because some Indian tribe is concerned about their sacred hunting grounds.  What bullshit.  For God’s sake in the name of what is good for Canada, build the pipeline!  Now the Alberta government say they are going to buy more rail tanker cars. What about the so called carbon footprint in building the tanker cars and the carbon fuel used to run the train engines and where the hell are they shipping the oil to? More bullshit. How do they even know that the rail companies have the capacity to haul more rail cars?

Climate change. For God’s sake, everyone knows the climate is changing, it has been changing since the big bang billions of years ago.  Hell, a million years ago, Alberta was covered by an ocean.  A hundred thousand years ago, Alberta was covered in ice as was most of North America. The climate is always changing and has been since the beginning of time.  There are fossils of palm trees in the Arctic.  It is the way our planet works.  I remember in the 1970’s the same scientists told us we were entering into a Mini ice age and that C02 was good.  Now the government is going to tax us until we bleed and the carbon tax will not do one Damn thing to change the climate.


GM closes a plant in Oshawa and the Trudeau government thinks the sky is falling because 2,500 workers will be out of work. There are 125,000 plus oil workers out of work in Alberta because of inept politicians.  Trudeau comes to Calgary and gives us his usual feel good platitudes.  He says he feels our pain.  What a jerk!  He never paid for a utility bill for gas or electricity in his entire life but he wants to tax me until I change my behaviour and force me to use fewer fossil fuels. Turn off the lights, turn down the thermostat, put on another sweater, don’t put up Christmas lights and save Mother Earth.  What bullshit!  This Trudeau person is a weak do-nothing jerk.  Simply by his lack of action, he is deeply hurting my Canada and I dislike him intensely for that. “


 

Edited by Jaydee
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this