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

Canada’s emissions to GDP are remarkably low. Why won’t our politicians admit that?

Opinion: We're responsible for only 1.6 per cent of global emissions. It's time to let the rest of the world and their 98.4 per cent of emissions catch up

Politicians continue to virtue signal when advocating for renewable energy — but sometimes, they omit facts. That might be because the omitted facts fail to support the “virtue” they are promoting, such as a clean green environment, or maybe politicians don’t feel the need to discuss cost versus benefits or other close examinations of their claims. But despite their best efforts, more information keeps coming to light showing why politicians find it necessary to sometimes leave out inconvenient truths. For instance, Canada appears to be leading the world in reducing air pollution while actually being a low emitter of GHGs in respect to our GDP. When have you heard any green-crusading politician mention that?

Last year, Global Affairs Canada issued a 144-page Voluntary National Review in respect to something called the 2030 Agenda. This “agenda” was a precursor to The Paris Agreement and the synergies in respect to aligning issues related to climate change are significant.

Here are a just few examples from the review that demonstrate the current Canadian government’s belief that simply spending billions of Canadian tax dollars in Canada and around the world will somehow impact climate change.

  1. “The Government of Canada is committed to supporting the poorest and most-vulnerable populations affected by climate change and has committed $2.65 billion in climate finance by 2020-2021 to help developing countries transition to a lower-carbon, climate-resilient economy.”
  2. “The Investing in Canada Plan allocates $9.2 billion to provinces and territories for green infrastructure investments to support mitigation projects, build infrastructure to help communities respond and adapt to the impacts of a changing climate, and build other green infrastructure that supports a healthy environment, including water and wastewater infrastructure.”
  3. “Significant investments are being made to develop a national network of charging and re-fuelling stations for alternative fuel vehicles. This infrastructure will enable Canadians to use lower-carbon or zero-emission vehicles.”
  4. ”In addition, Canada is working with its continental partners on the North American Renewable Integration Study (NARIS). By 2019, NARIS is expected to identify the key opportunities and challenges of integrating large amounts of wind, solar and hydro capacity into the North American electricity grid.”
  5. “Clean, non-emitting electricity systems will be the cornerstone of a modern, lower-carbon economy. Several programs have been introduced to support this goal, including initiatives to reduce the use of diesel in rural and remote areas, including for Indigenous communities, and support renewable power technologies, such as geothermal, tidal and offshore wind projects.”

The Voluntary National Review suggests how the spending will be paid for: “… revenues from oil and gas production will help fund the lower-carbon transition.” Clearly, “revenues from oil and gas production” is a reference to the “carbon tax,” which will increase substantially over a short time period, affecting all Canadians and pushing our economic prospects down as those “revenues” — a.k.a. “carbon taxes” — drive up the price of everything we consume.

The “review” references other reports/studies. For example, The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) and a report on health, the “Global Burden of Disease (GBD) project (which) ranked air pollution as the fourth-leading risk factor contributing to early deaths (6.9 million deaths worldwide) each year. In Canada, the GBD ranked air pollution as the 11th leading risk factor for premature death.

The GBD report compares data from 2007 to 2017 and provides plus or minus percentages. For Canada, the drop in the “air pollution” risk factor was negative 17.5 per cent and appears to be one of the biggest drops of any country. Surprisingly, Poland, which gets 80 per cent of its electricity from coal, shows a drop of 14.4 per cent. China was up by 1.7 per cent, whereas India was down 2.7 per cent and the U.S. down by five per cent. Germany (the bastion of renewable energy) was down by only 2.7 per cent. This data suggest that Canada is a leader in reducing air pollution.

For Canada, the drop in the 'air pollution' risk factor was negative 17.5% and appears to be one of the biggest drops of any country.

 

As one would expect, the review says a lot about GHGs and climate change, and lays out reputed accomplishments and future plans. The review also lectures us, telling us to use less: “The best energy is the energy we do not use. By doing more with less, Canadians can significantly reduce GHG emissions, save money, improve their environment and make their homes more comfortable.”

Most of us heard similar lectures by the former Ontario Liberal government (Premier Wynne once chided Ontarians for being “bad actors” when it came to electricity use) and we did consume less. However, we failed to see any savings. In fact, Ontarians paid more for less.

https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/canadas-emissions-to-gdp-are-remarkably-low-why-wont-our-politicians-admit-that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The poster is kind of misleading I think?

The Green Peace guy didn't cut down any trees, so does he really need to plant any?

Disclaimer ... I do acknowledge the fellow as an end use consumer of forest products; I would hope his protest recognizes that reality too?

I'm not much of a fan of the forestry industry; I think greed has resulted in a lot of environmental abuses.

A couple of things industry doesn't want you to know ...

Forest fires are part of the natural regeneration process, which is absolutely necessary to maintaining a healthy forest environment.

When fires do occur, plant matter is converted to ash, which feeds a new cycle of growth that includes several fazes; pine / spruce forests are the last step in a natural process that takes several hundred years to complete post fire.

In the world of the artificial forest, four years post re-seeding, managers will deem the plot Round Up ready and employ aerial spraying to eliminate competing plant life, which denies dependent fauna of food and other habitat needed to survive.

A manicured plantation of genetically engineered twigs that will be harvested in twenty years can hardly be considered a replacement for an old stand of trees.

In short, modern forestry practices do not respect the natural world.

 

Share this post


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

The poster is kind of misleading I think?

The Green Peace guy didn't cut down any trees, so does he really need to plant any?

Disclaimer ... I do acknowledge the fellow as an end use consumer of forest products; I would hope his protest recognizes that reality too?

I'm not much of a fan of the forestry industry; I think greed has resulted in a lot of environmental abuses.

A couple of things industry doesn't want you to know ...

Forest fires are part of the natural regeneration process, which is absolutely necessary to maintaining a healthy forest environment.

When fires do occur, plant matter is converted to ash, which feeds a new cycle of growth that includes several fazes; pine / spruce forests are the last step in a natural process that takes several hundred years to complete post fire.

In the world of the artificial forest, four years post re-seeding, managers will deem the plot Round Up ready and employ aerial spraying to eliminate competing plant life, which denies dependent fauna of food and other habitat needed to survive.

A manicured plantation of genetically engineered twigs that will be harvested in twenty years can hardly be considered a replacement for an old stand of trees.

In short, modern forestry practices do not respect the natural world.

 

Defcon, as proven in 2018, mother nature does not respect modern residential desires that result in massive forest fire loss when coupled with tree hugging.  Now only if we ban all residential property within xxx miles of forested area, we would be gold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Total hypocrisy of Governments  !!

1,500 CO2-Spewing Private Jets Descend on Davos To Discuss Climate Change

At least 1,500 private jets are expected to descend on Davos and nearby airports in Switzerland this week as the international financial and political elite gathers to talk about global climate challenges.

That would be up from the more than 1,300 aircraft movements seen at last year’s forum, despite climate change registering as the top risk factor identified for the global economy in a survey of World Economic Forum (WEF) movers and shakers last week.

Sir David Attenborough, a lead speaker this year, has already stated that climate is the issue of our time.

The veteran broadcaster, 92, used his acceptance speech to tell business leaders and governments to come up with “practical solutions”.

Speaking at the beginning of the forum on Monday, the Blue Planet and Dynasties narrator told the crowd he is “quite literally from another age” and warned of “man-made disaster of global scale” that lies ahead.

Industry group Air Charter Service calculated the private jet flights over the week, as delegates fly in to hear the likes of Mr. Attenborough speak at an event boasting a basic entry ticket price of U.S.$60,000 – per person.

Davos is a small town in the Swiss Alps, around 92 miles south-east of Zurich.

Andy Christie, Private Jets Director at ACS, told the Guardian how the numbers are determined:

Davos doesn’t have its own airfield and, whilst we have several clients who fly into the town by helicopter, the four main airfields that private jet users attending the forum use are Zürich, Dübendorf, St. Gallen-Altenrhein and St. Moritz.

Working with WingX, we looked at private jet activity at those airports over the six days of each WEF week since 2013 – from one day before the event to one day after.

Last year was the busiest year for private jets so far, showing an 11% increase on 2017, with more than 1,300 aircraft movements. If we see a similar increase this year, we could be looking at almost 1,500 aircraft movements over the six days.

Countries with the most arrivals and departures over the past five years at Davos are Germany, France, the UK, U.S., Russia, and UAE, respectively.

Demand for private jets far outstrips other events that also loom large on the private aviation calendar, such as the Super Bowl or Champions’ League final, according to Mr. Christie.

“We have had bookings from as far as our operations in Hong Kong, India, and the US ?- no other event has the same global appeal,” he said in a statement

And the trend is towards even more expensive, larger private jets such as the Gulfstream GV and Bombardier’s Global Express.

“This is at least in part due to some of the long distances traveled, but also possibly due to business rivals not wanting to be seen to be outdone by one another,” Mr. Christie said.

Around 3,000 participants are expected for the 2019 edition of the WEF. They represent the worlds of business, government, international aid, academia, arts and culture, and the media, although U.S. President Donald Trump will not be among them.

Among the list of topics to be covered this week is the WEF’s Global Risk Report for 2019 which reveals environmental crises, such as failures to tackle climate change, “are among the likeliest and highest-impact risk that the world faces over the next decade.”

How much does it cost to participate?

The WEF website reveals annual membership (required if you want to buy a ticket to Davos) is upwards of U.S.$60,000, depending on the institution or company’s “level of engagement”.

https://climatechangedispatch.com/1500-private-jets-davos-climate-talks/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

                       CANADA SAVING THE PLANET FROM WORLD WIDE COAL PLANTS

 

COME ON..YOU ALL BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING AND THE CARBON TAX RIGHT?‘

WE ARE CANADIANS!!

Saving the planet – It Is the Canadian way right?

Here's a small sample of how many coal plants there are in the world today.

The EU has 468 plants building 27 more for a total of 495

Turkey has 56 plants building 93 more total 149.

South Africa has 79 building 24 more total 103.

India has 589 building 446 more total 1036.

Philippines has 19 building 60 more total 79.

South Korea has 58 building 26 more total 84.

Japan has 90 building 45 more total 135.

AND CHINA has 2363 building 1171 total 3534 .

Here come our CANADIAN politicians that are going to shut down our 15 remaining plants and impose a standard of living strangle hold on tax payers to save the planet!!

A Total of 5615 on the face of the globe and we will shutdown 15 to save the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

That plant today is making electricity from burning coal two to three times cleaner than from natural gas. Yet, it was mentioned seldom, if at all, by our federal delegation at Paris.

https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/brad-wall-canada-could-impact-emissions-were-ottawa-not-so-obsessed-with-carbon-taxes

Quote

Consider if Canada’s climate plan was about real reductions in global emissions conveyed by a new focus on reducing the costs of the next-generation technologies like CCS in which we are already international leaders.

Despite the governments efforts to shut down our coal plants, we continue to supply the world with that “dirty” fuel. Trudeau ignores the detail that we, as a country, are large producers.

With Trudeau it’s all about the tax/revenue generated...and it won’t be revenue neutral when ALL the costs are factored in. How much will it cost just to administer this thing. I know I won’t get a rebate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LATEST ENVIRO ALARMISM — MELTING ICE CAPS — NO CAUSE FOR ALARM

 

  • Calgary Sun
  • 23 Jan 2019
  • LORNE GUNTER lgunter@postmedia.com @sunlornegunter
img?regionKey=YzHWpec%2f3ik0oeLRCPtvcQ%3d%3d  

It sounds huge (and vaguely terrifying), which is how it’s meant to sound.

Last week, several newspapers reported on a study from a NASA researcher that claimed in the past decade the Antarctic ice cap has been melting six times faster than it used to. An “alarming” rate according to The Washington Post.

“The Antarctic lost 40 billion tons of melting ice to the ocean each year from 1979 to 1989. That figure rose to 252 billion tons lost per year beginning in 2009.” That certainly does sound alarming!

We must be on the cusp of a climate disaster with losses that size. The oceans will surely rise up and swallow us all. Is that nice Mr. Trudeau sure his carbon tax is high enough to save us?

But let’s put the loss in context. And let’s use gigatons, because the numbers are more manageable. There are 1 billion tons in a gigaton.

For starters, the Antarctic is losing 252 gigatons of ice each year (supposedly). But Antarctica, where 90 per cent or more of the world’s glacial ice is stored, has 26,500,000 gigatons of ice.

The “alarming” melt is one one-thousandth of one per cent each year.

That means that even if Antarctica added no new ice each year (and it does), the Antarctic ice cap would not disappear for nearly 1,100 years.

But won’t we all drown in the rising oceans before then? Won’t the seas consume British Columbia and make Calgary a West Coast port (meaning Alberta won’t need B.C.’s permission to build a pipeline to tidewater)?

Two-hundred and fifty-two gigatons of melt is only enough to raise sea levels by 0.7 mm annually. Meaning in a century, this “alarming” yearly loss would raise sea levels by just seven centimetres, or about three inches.

And the sea level rise from this much melt is likely to be even smaller. As NASA itself points out, sea level has risen perhaps 7.6 mm in the past 30 years. That’s a rate of just 3 centimetres (a little more than one inch) per century.

But this most recent NASA study underlines the uncertainty of climate science. When anyone (such as our esteemed prime minister) claims the science is settled, it is not.

As recently as 2015, another NASA study using thousands of highly accurate satellite measurements over several decades, found that Antarctica was gaining more ice each year than it was losing.

“According to the new analysis of satellite data,” NASA reported, “the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.”

Also adding to the uncertainty is the fact no one knows for sure the source of the current melting (or slowing of ice growth), plus no one can be certain whether this a repeat of a past natural pattern or the result of current man-made activity, such as carbon emissions.

The authors of the most recent NASA study say the cause is warmer ocean currents reaching the Antarctic. But no one can say for sure whether that is the result of global warming or merely the kind of slight shifting of ocean currents that happens all the time.

Given that the amount of ice melting (one one-thousandth of a per cent per year) is tiny, it could well be within the range of natural fluctuation. Antarctica gains ice for a while, then loses some for a while. Then gains again.

Despite the desires of environmentalists and “green” politicians, it’s probably not something to get alarmed about.

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.

Sign in to follow this