Sign in to follow this  
Malcolm

Climate Change?

Recommended Posts

None of this stuff is terribly difficult, it simply requires objectives and the willingness to meet them. The willingness simply isn’t there and currently some 76% of people don’t want to pay for what they say they want.

By way of example, I have repeatedly asked where the 70 mega ton deficit in carbon should come from and I’ve asked right here on this very forum… check the posts. Implicit in the question is what are you prepared to sacrifice (that means do without). 70 megatons is a big number. There has been no answer, why is that? I’m guessing because just like losing weight, it requires effort and sacrifice.

Let me make a few recommendations that fall way short of the mark and see if y’all agree. I stand ready to entertain counter proposals (they should be more severe though, I’m being conservative here):

Shut down the Tar Sands project in its entirety (this will compensate for expected increases over the life of the accord);

Lower the national speed limit to 90 KPH and enforce it with photo radar;

Put that revenue into incentives for the purchase of green vehicles;

Limit pork and beef production by quota only to that required for domestic consumption - no exports:

Limit wheat and cereal crops by quota only to that required for domestic consumption - no exports;  and

Leave the transportation sector largely in tact (that’s the cost for being a large country) but impose taxes on empty seats for air travel. You can fly that DH8 YAM to YQT with 6 pax but you will be taxed on the 30 empty seats. Incentives for electric commercial transport vehicles and mass transport would be included.

When you look at year over year increases this is likely not enough but we will take the temperature of it after a year and impose further measures. The tar sands are a big player in this and buy us slack for future growth in other sectors. I should add I think it's a bad plan and don't recommend it, I offer it simply as a possible opportunity cost to a country whose land mass scrubs far more carbon than it produces yet still appears bent on punishing itself (so be it).  Watcha think? Still want to play?

 

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ok...not to be the nimby type, but with all the sacrifice proposed.....will it still make a difference for Canada alone to undertake these measures?? We are dealing with weather/climate that is generated thousands of miles away, so when the rest of the world develops these types of initiatives...I’ll think about it.

btw...wasn’t the Kyoto protocol a wealth transfer system to the under developed countries because they couldn’t afford to do it themselves?

 

Quote

Five air masses affect Canada’s weather: continental arctic, maritime arctic, maritime polar, maritime tropical, and continental tropical. Winds carry these great bodies of air across the country. Each air mass, extending hundreds or thousands of kilometres, has uniform temperature and moisture conditions, acquired from the underlying landmass or ocean where they developed. The very cold, dry continental arctic air mass, the source of Canada’s bitter winters, originates over snow-covered barrens. In summer, its cool winds sweep south, bringing a welcome respite from heat waves. The maritime arctic air mass, traveling over large open bodies of water, is mild and moist. The maritime polar air masses of the Pacific and Atlantic soak coastal areas with rain, fog, and snow. The Atlantic maritime tropical air mass from the Gulf of Mexico scorches Eastern Canada with summer heat and humidity. By contrast, the Pacific maritime tropical has a cooling influence. The continental tropical air mass rarely reaches Canada because its hot, dry impact disappears as it moves north. The maps show winter and summer air mass movements. All weather changes are related to the interaction of these air masses along what are called fronts (When air masses collide). The polar jet stream forms perhaps the biggest front, an ever-changing boundary where the cool winds from the north meet the warm winds from the south. In spring, the clashing air masses produce severe thunderstorms and tornadoes.

 

Share this post


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

None of this stuff is terribly difficult, it simply requires objectives and the willingness to meet them. The willingness simply isn’t there and currently some 76% of people don’t want to pay for what they say they want.

By way of example, I have repeatedly asked where the 70 mega ton deficit in carbon should come from and I’ve asked right here on this very forum… check the posts. Implicit in the question is what are you prepared to sacrifice (that means do without). 70 megatons is a big number. There has been no answer, why is that? I’m guessing because just like losing weight, it requires effort and sacrifice.

Let me make a few recommendations that fall way short of the mark and see if y’all agree. I stand ready to entertain counter proposals (they should be more severe though, I’m being conservative here):

Shut down the Tar Sands project in its entirety (this will compensate for expected increases over the life of the accord);

Lower the national speed limit to 90 KPH and enforce it with photo radar;

Put that revenue into incentives for the purchase of green vehicles;

Limit pork and beef production by quota only to that required for domestic consumption - no exports:

Limit wheat and cereal crops by quota only to that required for domestic consumption - no exports;  and

Leave the transportation sector largely in tact (that’s the cost for being a large country) but impose taxes on empty seats for air travel. You can fly that DH8 YAM to YQT with 6 pax but you will be taxed on the 30 empty seats. Incentives for electric commercial transport vehicles and mass transport would be included.

When you look at year over year increases this is likely not enough but we will take the temperature of it after a year and impose further measures. The tar sands are a big player in this and buy us slack for future growth in other sectors. I should add I think it's a bad plan and don't recommend it, I offer it simply as a possible opportunity cost to a country whose land mass scrubs far more carbon than it produces yet still appears bent on punishing itself (so be it).  Watcha think? Still want to play?

 

The impossible dream.  You forgot to mention the impact on Canadian Tax revenues if the OIL Sands are shut down.....  But of course your whole post was tongue in cheek, NO?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, st27 said:

will it still make a difference for Canada alone to undertake these measures??

In short no. Canada produces about 1.7% of global emissions and our landmass scrubs that plus a bunch more. 

 

1 hour ago, st27 said:

so when the rest of the world develops these types of initiatives...I’ll think about it.

Global cooperation on this will simply not happen IMO. Our money would be better spent by picking a river in Africa, capturing the waste plastic and incinerating it to make electricity for them that needs it. Banning plastic straws in Longlac Ontario is on par with contributions made by lightbulb fairies.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Marshall said:

But of course your whole post was tongue in cheek, NO?

Indeed it was. The entire thing borders on crazy. I keep asking the question though and get only shrieks of "climate denier" in lieu of actual proposals.

But, should you actually wish to set coarse for Insanity Island, I think some of it has merit. As the transportation sector goes green (with incentives from unrepentant speeders in Ontario), offsets in carbon would be applied directly to the Tar Sands... it would become a project in waiting.

70 megatons (actually about 79 and growing) is a big number, I think our entire agriculture sector produces about 60. Clearly, lightbulbs won't do it. When you look at hard numbers, hard choices, and solicit courses of action to actually get er done, the lightbulb fairies grow quiet. I'm suggesting that if you want me to by into "the plan" the plan has to actually exist and be something the majority is willing to undertake. It won't happen. IMO, all of the talk is nothing more than a new gym membership on new years day.   

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re reading your post Wolfhunter, the points mentioned would reduce the carbon emissions....a big one to include would be shutting down BCs coal industry. I’m spitballing here, but it would at least equal carbon emissions from the tar sands. BC could  feel unemployment the way Alberta has with the pipelines.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, st27 said:

Are we willing to accept the pain to reduce emissions that are negligible on a global scale?

There lies the question.

IMO, the answer is (and should be) no. I just think that people fail to really hoist aboard the magnitude of effort it would take to achieve such a minuscule gain on the world stage. We could wreck our entire economy going from 1.7% to 1%. The cost of .7% is more than any of the folks doing the screaming are willing to pay IMO. Real and measurable gains could be made by "adopting" one of the 10 rivers responsible for 95% of the plastic in our oceans but banning straws in Longlac seems to resonate better with the public for reasons I can't fathom.  

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, st27 said:

Re reading your post Wolfhunter, the points mentioned would reduce the carbon emissions....a big one to include would be shutting down BCs coal industry. I’m spitballing here, but it would at least equal carbon emissions from the tar sands. BC could  feel unemployment the way Alberta has with the pipelines.

 

And better yet, shutting down the coal trains ( a large number which are hauling coal from the US) would free up capacity for

Canadian grain and oil 

Quote

In 2008, only 4.4 million tonnes of Vancouver’s coal exports could be called non-metallurgical. By 2017, this had more than doubled to 11.3 million tonnes.

Controversially, almost all of this thermal coal is coming from the United States. As lawmakers in Washington and Oregon have begun shutting down their own coal ports due to environmental concerns, thermal coal producers in Wyoming and Montana have simply diverted their product through Canada

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just picked up 10 packages of plastic Straws. Enough to last me a lifetime. 

Circa 2025

 

15D50B13-FCDF-479E-8CA2-BE0F45359BFD.jpeg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most studies report C02 emissions on a per capita basis, so the following may be a surprise .  I have extracted the list of the top 25 C02 emitting countries from the report and you will see that Canada ranks nbr. 10. The 9 countries who emit more gives one an idea of how little things would change if we were to stop all C02 emissions from Canada. Not saying we should quit our efforts to reduce our emissions (pissing in the ocean so to speak) but ...

Quote

 

Despite long-standing warnings of a climate emergency as well as efforts by some nations to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the worldwide use of fossil fuels -- and with it global greenhouse gas emissions -- grew last year.

A number of potential disaster scenarios caused by climate change remain well documented. And yet, increasing demand for coal, oil, and natural gas drove the increase in GHG emissions, according to the International Energy Agency.

To determine the countries emitting the most CO2, 24/7 Wall St. ranked countries based on territorial emissions -- millions of metric tons of carbon emitted from fossil fuels and cement production within a country's borders -- in 2017 published by the Global Carbon Project 2018. This report and our analysis focuses only on fossil fuel-generated CO2 emissions, the single most important greenhouse gas and by far the largest contributor to anthropogenic warming.

 

 

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/25-countries-that-produce-the-most-co2-emissions/ss-AAE87lK

25. Malaysia

> CO2 emissions from fossil fuel (2017): 254.6 million metric tons

24. Taiwan

> CO2 emissions from fossil fuel (2017): 271.5 million metric tons

23. Spain

> CO2 emissions from fossil fuel (2017): 281.4 million metric tons

22. Kazakhstan

> CO2 emissions from fossil fuel (2017): 292.6 million metric ton

21. Poland

> CO2 emissions from fossil fuel (2017): 326.6 million metric tons

20. Thailand

> CO2 emissions from fossil fuel (2017): 330.84 million metric tons

19. Italy

> CO2 emissions from fossil fuel (2017): 355.45 million metric tons

18. France

> CO2 emissions from fossil fuel (2017): 356.3 million metric tons

17. United Kingdom

> CO2 emissions from fossil fuel (2017): 384.7 million metric tons

16. Australia

> CO2 emissions from fossil fuel (2017): 413.1 million metric tons

15. Turkey

> CO2 emissions from fossil fuel (2017): 447.9 million metric tons

14. South Africa

> CO2 emissions from fossil fuel (2017): 456.3 million metric tons

13. Brazil

> CO2 emissions from fossil fuel (2017): 476.1 million metric tons

12. Indonesia

> CO2 emissions from fossil fuel (2017): 486.8 million metric tons

11. Mexico

> CO2 emissions from fossil fuel (2017): 490.3 million metric ton

10. Canada

> CO2 emissions from fossil fuel (2017): 572.8 million metric tons

9. South Korea

> CO2 emissions from fossil fuel (2017): 616.1 million metric tons

8. Saudi Arabia

> CO2 emissions from fossil fuel (2017): 635.0 million metric tons

7. Iran

> CO2 emissions from fossil fuel (2017): 672.3 million metric tons

6. Germany

> CO2 emissions from fossil fuel (2017): 799.4 million metric tons

5. Japan

> CO2 emissions from fossil fuel (2017): 1,205.1 million metric tons

4. Russian Federation

> CO2 emissions from fossil fuel (2017): 1,692.8 million metric tons

3. India

> CO2 emissions from fossil fuel (2017): 2,466.8 million metric tons

2. USA

> CO2 emissions from fossil fuel (2017): 5,269.5 million metric tons

1. China

> CO2 emissions from fossil fuel (2017): 9,838.8 million metric tons

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just drove Ontario east to west and west to east again. The average speed was 20 plus KPH over the limit (no enforcement in sight). Where are the Ontario residents who demand immediate action on CO2 emissions? My support is easy to obtain, you need only show me that you believe your own noise and  tell me where the 79 Mts we need to cut should come from. 

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're flaunting that you're a scofflaw, and that rational discussion of co2 issues isn't in your makeup?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe the screaming masses will walk the walk anymore than I believe you are going to tell me where that CO2 deficit should come from. That is the first step in a rational approach to a rational discussion... you have thus far refused to tell us what you want to cut. I don't wear makeup either.... that's another discussion.

When I ask where the cuts are to come from the name calling always starts. What is a scofflaw? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never mind, I looked it up. 

I was the one being passed by the scofflaws.... from what I've seen, drivers in Ontario have no grounds to shriek about immediate action and even less to call people from out of province who do follow the rules silly names. Immediate individual action is there for the taking and I eagerly await the list of things you propose to lower the deficit. I'm guessing that following the law isn't one of them eh?

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some interesting points raised in this article that would make for an interesting debate in the upcoming election......who am I kidding???

CLIMATE CHANGE HYPOCRISY

South Africa, India, the Philippines, South Korea, Japan and China, all signatories to the Paris climate accord, are building a combined 1,800 new coal-fired power plants. Coal plants emit twice as much CO2 as natural gas plants. Meanwhile, international environmental groups campaign against sending Canadian LNG to those countries. And here at home, the Trudeau Liberals have just introduced a tax specifically designed to discourage the building of new cleaner-burning gas-fired power plants as they continue to pursue the fantasy that wind and solar will keep the lights on. Good luck with that. After hundreds of billions of dollars invested, wind and solar contribute just two per cent of global energy supply. And that’s only when the wind is blowing, and the sun is shining.

 

 

 

https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/gwyn-morgan-here-are-a-few-climate-change-head-scratchers-for-canadian-voters-to-ponder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sobeys to remove plastic bags from all stores next year as grocers go green

 
Aleksandra Sagan , The Canadian Press
Published Wednesday, July 31, 2019 6:19AM EDT 
Last Updated Wednesday, July 31, 2019 8:53AM EDT

Shoppers at Sobeys Inc. grocery stores will soon need to bring their own totes or lug their purchases home in paper bags as the chain moves to phase out plastic bags by February 2020.

Canadians go through hundreds of millions of single-use plastic bags at grocery stores each year, and the chains -- most of which charge a nominal fee for plastic bags --are facing pressure from increasingly eco-conscious consumers to do more to eliminate their plastic-centric packaging.

Sobeys said it is making the move to phase out plastic bags as a response to calls from customers and employees to use less plastic. The retailer also committed to launch programs to reduce plastic in other areas of the stores.

"We really felt that the amount of avoidable plastic in grocery stores is shocking," said Vittoria Varalli, the company's vice-president of sustainability. The change will eliminate 225 million bags used annually at Sobeys 255 stores.

The company, which is owned by Stellarton, N.S.-based Empire Co. Ltd, will phase out plastic bags and introduce paper bags at its other banners soon after. Sobeys also operates Safeway, Thrifty Foods, IGA, Foodland, Freshco and Farm Boy. It boasts more than 1,500 stores across all its chains.

"The ultimate goal," said Varalli, is to eliminate plastic bags from the produce aisle as well. It plans to introduce a line of reusable mesh alternatives made from recycled bottles in August.

Food companies have been on a mission to reduce plastic from their operations recently as consumers push for more sustainable practices. Some are taking initiatives to change ahead of the federal government's announced ban on single-use plastics by 2021, which would force them to find non-plastic alternatives.

Last year, restaurants responded to pressure to eliminate plastic straws after a video showing someone removing a straw stuck up a turtle's nose went viral.

Starbucks, A&W and other chains made promises to remove the item from their eateries, and some have already done so.

But the trend toward sustainability didn't stop at straws. Many fast-food giants started experimenting with other green packaging. In June, McDonald's Canada announced it would test wooden cutlery and other recycling-friendly containers at two restaurants.

"I think they're trying to respond to popular concern," said Vito Buonsante, plastics program manager at the advocacy organization Environmental Defence, of grocers' efforts to reduce plastic waste by targeting plastic bags.

In coastal regions, plastic bags create a major environmental problem, he said, where they persist for a long time and harm wildlife.

Despite the fact that Canadians use about 2.86 billion plastic bags a year, Buonsante sees them as "low-hanging fruit" that people easily can do without.

Grocery stores are slowly starting to get on board with the push to eliminate single-use plastics.

Metro Inc. announced earlier this year it would start allowing consumers to use reusable containers to store fresh products, such as those from the deli and pastry counters, at its Quebec stores.

In May, the company committed to cut its use of single-use plastic bags in half by the end of its 2023 financial year. It also said it wants to reduce the amount of produce bags used by 10 per cent by the end of its 2020 financial year.

Loblaw Companies Ltd., meanwhile, started charging five cents per plastic bag about a decade ago and reduced the number of plastic bags used in its stores by nearly 12 billion, wrote spokesperson Catherine Thomas in an email.

It has donated $10 million to the World Wildlife Fund with some of the proceeds as of the end of 2018. Thomas declined to provide the total amount the company has made by charging for plastic bags.

Meanwhile, customers seeking greener grocery pastures have given rise to niche no-waste markets across Canada.

"Change is kind of happening," said Buonsante, but -- for the most part -- these initiatives are limited in effectiveness.

A five-cent bag fee is not a strong deterrent, he said, and companies should create incentives to help shoppers shift their habits.

Governments around the world have started to crack down on single-use plastics to force companies into change.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said in June that his government is starting the regulatory work to ban toxic single-use plastics because the garbage infiltrating the world's waterways is out of hand.

Nothing is going to be banned overnight, with the process to implement a federal ban or limitations on a product under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act usually taking two to four years. The goal is to make decisions on everything on the list by 2021.

Trudeau said Canada's plan will "closely mirror" that of Europe. In March, the European Parliament agreed that by 2021 the European Union will ban almost a dozen single-use products including plastic plates, cutlery, cups, straws, plastic sticks in cotton swabs, balloon sticks and stir sticks, and Styrofoam cups and take-out food containers. Oxo-degradeable plastics including plastic grocery bags, which break down into tiny pieces with exposure to air but never fully disappear, are also to be banned.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Thomas declined to provide the total amount the company has made by charging for plastic bags.

Loblaws and Sobeys are two of the most expensive places to buy groceries so I would guess the real reason is more likely the price of bags have risen . The industry wide price has been set at .05 so they can hardly raise the price without causing attention to themselves. Much easier to make themselves look like the Good Samaritan saving the earth one bag at a time.

Edited by Jaydee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jaydee said:

And the real reason is more likely the price of bags have risen so they can’t make as much money as they want on them.

I think deicer is rubbing off on you. Darned capitalists  😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Marshall said:

I think deicer is rubbing off on you. Darned capitalists  😀

OMG...Please say it ain’t so....that would be a fate worse than death !!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Jaydee said:

Loblaws and Sobeys are two of the most expensive places to buy groceries so I would guess the real reason is more likely the price of bags have risen . The industry wide price has been set at .05 so they can hardly raise the price without causing attention to themselves. Much easier to make themselves look like the Good Samaritan saving the earth one bag at a time.

Still, it's a start. The NBLC is also contemplating removal of all bags from their service. Bring your own or carry what you buy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Co Op introduced an optional compostable grocery bag a few months back and now they are going further.

Co-op phasing out plastic bags

 

  • Calgary Herald
  • 1 Aug 2019
  • AMANDA STEPHENSON

Calgary Co-op’s compostable shopping bag program has been so successful that the local retailer will soon eliminate plastic bags entirely at its liquor stores and convenience stores.

As of Aug. 19, shoppers at Calgary Co-op’s Wine Spirits and Beer locations, as well as its convenience stores and gas bars, will have the option to either bring their own reusable bag or pay 10 cents for a 100 per cent compostable bag that can be used in-store and then again at home in kitchen compost pails and green bins.

“It’s something we’re always looking at — ways to reduce that environmental footprint,” said Calgary Co-op spokeswoman Sage Pullen Mcintosh. “We are still seeing some demand (for plastic) from our members, but we are seeing that demand decrease. And that compostable bag is something they’re really enjoying.”

Calgary Co-op’s efforts come as grocers across the country take steps to reduce plastic waste. On Wednesday, Sobeys Inc. became Canada’s first national grocery chain to say it will drop plastic bags. The Nova Scotia-based company said it will adopt paper and reusable bags at its 255 outlets across the country by January.

The move will be followed next year in its Safeway, Freshco and Foodland stores, as well as IGA locations in Montreal.

In Calgary, Co-op first introduced the compostable bag program at its grocery store locations on April 22, the same day it began charging a five-cent fee for plastic bags. Since then, the retailer says it has sold 736,000 compostable bags (approximately 10,000 per day). The combination of the compostable bag option and the fee for plastic has resulted in an almost 73 per cent reduction in plastic bag use by Calgary Co-op shoppers, compared to the same 15-week period in 2018.

Pullen Mcintosh added the compostable bag itself has proven so popular with customers that 52 per cent of all items purchased at Calgary Co-op stores are now bagged that way.

“It took a little time. There were some questions on the ... cost and all those pieces initially,” she said.

“But while we’re definitely seeing the use of reusable bags, the compostable just seems to be such a nice option for people because they use them at home, as well.”

While it makes sense to reduce plastic shopping bag use, said Sylvain Charlebois, director of the Agri-food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University, what Sobeys and Calgary Co-op are doing is only a drop in the bucket when it comes to tackling the problem of plastics in the food industry.

The bigger issue, he said, is the single-use plastic — such as the ubiquitous clamshell containers that hold everything from baked goods to berries and tomatoes — used in food packaging.

“Bags are low-hanging fruit,” Charlebois said. “The big problem is really food packaging and this measure doesn’t address that problem at all.”

Earlier this year, Metro — a grocery chain with stores in Ontario and Quebec — announced it would allow customers to bring their own reusable containers from home.

And Loblaw’s announced it would partner with Terracycle, an American-based company that specializes in consignment packaging, for a one-year pilot project in the Toronto area. The pilot, called Loop, will enable customers who order online to have select products delivered to their homes in reusable packaging. When customers are done with the products, the packages can be returned to Loblaw’s, cleaned, refilled and used again.

Charlebois said both approaches are experimental. Loblaw’s is dependent on consumers being willing to pay extra for a reusable food packaging program, while Metro’s raises significant food safety concerns. (There is a risk of pathogens or allergens being transmitted via a customer’s seemingly “clean” container.)

For its part, Calgary Co-op is also looking for solutions to the packaging dilemma, said Pullen Mcintosh, but food safety needs to be a priority.

“We are constantly evaluating with our commodities — our produce, our bakery, our deli — and looking at what’s going to be the best fit for all of those areas,” she said. “But right now it’s in the research phase.”

Bags are low-hanging fruit. The big problem is really food packaging and this measure doesn’t address that problem at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/1/2019 at 11:04 AM, Marshall said:

Bags are low-hanging fruit.

Indeed they are.

I'll miss the bags though, they keep my feet dry in the winter, we use them (by the hundreds and hundreds) to stuff field archery targets at the range. They get used as garbage bags and carry my towel and soap to the gym…. not one of these critters goes to waste at my house. When they are gone I'll have to buy them and most of those are twice as thick as the bags being banned. Cool eh? I'm willing to bet that the reusable bags (touted by the name callers) have a higher carbon footprint than those they want to see banned. 

As in other endeavours, the biggest hurdle seems to be the people who scream the loudest. Why are they silent about big things we can do right now, like the tons of raw sewage released into the St Lawrence (and elsewhere). Most people don't think it even happens.

Why are they opposed to assisting (yes money) developing countries who are the real polluters… seriously, if you want action on plastic pollution in the oceans there are only about 10 rivers to clean up, pick one and get er done.  And if they can’t do that, at least drive the bloody speed limit and remain civil.  

We only recycle some 10 - 12% of our plastic.... why is that? Shipping it overseas isn't recycling, it's sorting. 

I’ll believe that it’s a crisis when the people who claim it’s a crisis start acting like it’s a crisis:

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-theres-no-hypocrite-like-a-rich-jet-setting-anti-global-warming-one

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plastic bags are the minimum.....why do salads/vegetables have to be wrapped in plastic?? (Forcing you to buy more than you need) What happened to bulk produce?? 

Ban plastic water bottles...you want water, refil your own jug!  (Yeah but there is no profit in just water that way)

trudeau and barbies care about the environment would have more credit if they started in this area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is what the problem actually looks like. 

Despite howling from the name callers, I still maintain that big results only come from attacking big problems head on. Directly and indirectly, the money we would have to spend to effect marginal change in Canada would go to better use in places like this.... and our efforts would reap immediate results.  This is where the problem is and these are the folks that can't solve it on their own.  

I haven't used a plastic straw in years... there might be a better way.

 

indo_67.jpg.0ad4b01045aa8f2ae1134a8d9aa42722.jpg

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where is that picture taken?

How many 10's of thousands of kilometers from Canada?

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