Sign in to follow this  
Malcolm

Climate Change?

Recommended Posts

Still want to know how Greta traveled to Calgary and then Edmonton from the US.  Shanks Mare?  I bet not. One of her next stops is South America.  Will the prevailing winds carry her there or perhaps some oil fueled transportation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ll bet Greta won’t be at the docks in Vancouver, where they export about 30 MILLION tones of filthy coal a year. Burnt in places like China.....an export that doesn’t seem to be on anyone’s radar, from the environmentalist to our liberal/ndp mouthpieces who are always talking about dirty oil.

Very selective targets....

Share this post


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

I’ll bet Greta won’t be at the docks in Vancouver, where they export about 30 MILLION tones of filthy coal a year. Burnt in places like China.....an export that doesn’t seem to be on anyone’s radar, from the environmentalist to our liberal/ndp mouthpieces who are always talking about dirty oil.

Very selective targets....

And a lot of that coal travels by train to Vancouver from the US  https://vancouversun.com/opinion/op-ed/james-kerr-canada-should-not-be-shipping-coal-overseas-for-the-u-s

James Kerr: Canada should not be shipping coal overseas for the U.S.

The burning of coal negatively impacts human health and pollutes the environment in the vicinity of a burn facility and, globally, is the biggest contributor to climate change.

Updated: February 15, 2019
file-in-this-may-29-2012-file-photo-a-tr

A train hauling coal to B.C. heads north out of Seattle. ELAINE THOMPSON / AP

In these days of controversy regarding environmental concerns, pipeline unrest, carbon tax, trade wars, border security and heightening tariffs, there is one industrial activity that, from a Canadian perspective, just does not make any sense politically, economically or environmentally. This controversial practice should outrage most Canadians, whether they be pro- or anti-pipeline, pro- or anti-Trudeau Liberals or pro- or anti-B.C. NDP/Green coalition.

The activity in question is the shipping of U.S. thermal coal through Canada to foreign markets. This coal is mined in Wyoming and Montana, transported by rail to Westshore Terminals at Roberts Bank and shipped overseas for use in coal-fired power plants primarily in South Korea, Japan or Chile. The 10.5 million tonnes per year of U.S. coal shipped through Roberts Bank is comparable to the tonnage of less-dirty metallurgical coal shipped from all U.S. West Coast ports and is 29 per cent of the 36.8 million tonnes a year of coal shipped from Vancouver — the largest coal port in North America.

There is no doubt that coal is one of the dirtiest fuels widely used to generate electricity (thermal coal) and refine metals (metallurgical coal). The burning of coal negatively impacts human health and pollutes the environment in the vicinity of a burn facility and, globally, is the biggest contributor to climate change. Concerns regarding the shipping of coal include airborne coal dust that is blown from transport trains and from the mountains of coal stockpiled at Roberts Bank. There is also runoff rain water that picks up dissolved toxic contaminants as it percolates through the uncovered coal mountains and ends up in the environmentally sensitive delta water. Other major concerns include fire and spillage from accidents.

So, why is Canada involved in shipping U.S. coal overseas? The reason is partly political and partly environmental. The solidly Democrat states of Washington, Oregon and California, with tough environmental regulations, have repeatedly declined approval to ship coal despite recent appeals by the coal industry to the courts and the Trump administration. This leaves the thermal coal resources of the solidly Republican states of Wyoming and Montana land-locked. The solution is for Canada to come to the rescue by allowing the coal to be shipped.

Good old Canada, with environmental protection laws that were drastically weakened in 2012, willingly accepts shipping the U.S. coal that is too dirty for the Americans to ship themselves. The U.S. coal shipments are increasing. At Roberts Bank, they increased tenfold from 2008 to 2017 and another 15 per cent from 2017 to 2018. It appears that weak Canadian environmental laws are rigged to favour economic benefits for a handful of people, in this case mostly in the U.S. coal industry, over the health and well-being of the environment and citizens.In the coastal U.S. states, the situation is the opposite.

U.S. coal is not purchased or owned by Canadians and is not consumed in Canada so it is not subject to import tariffs, carbon tax or other levies. It is just a product in transit, passing through and contaminating the suburban, agricultural and Indigenous land corridor between the Canada/U.S. border and Roberts Bank. Thus the Westshore Terminals facility has become a nearly tax-free bypass conduit, allowing the U.S. coal industry to export its product overseas.

From a global perspective, the appalling hypocrisy of Canada’s policy regarding coal is a national embarrassment. In November 2017, Canada and the UK co-founded the Powering Past Coal Alliance with the mission “to advance the transition away from unabated coal power generation.”

Following this initiative, Canada committed to phase-out traditional coal-fired electricity by 2030 and pledged in December up to $275 million to assist developing countries in Asia to convert to clean energy from coal. So on one hand Canada pretends to lead the world on the road to phase-out coal-power generation. On the other, it quietly and unconscionably assists the U.S. coal industry ramp-up coal exports for use in power generation overseas.

The negative environmental impacts and controversy do not stop at Roberts Bank. The pollution continues into the ecologically sensitive waters of the Salish Sea and its surrounding communities. The dirty U.S. coal is transported overseas by foreign-owned and operated ships, another environmentally contentious issue which again results from weak Canadian regulations.

Expanded trade through the port of Vancouver has led to significant increase in shipping traffic over the past decade. Foreign owned and operated freighters, tankers and cargo ships, which had traditionally anchored in English Bay near the port of Vancouver, are now anchoring in the pristine waters of the Gulf Islands while waiting to dock. They often arrive weeks and sometimes months ahead of schedule and spend their wait time parked free of charge, polluting the air and disrupting marine life, including endangered orcas. The foreign ships run noisy, pollution-emitting generators 24/7 without regulation and without monitoring. They also drag their anchors along the sea bottom, destroying marine habitats.

Included among these foreign vessels are the ships that come to pick up the U.S. coal. These foreign ships should have no right to trespass in Canadian waters, let alone loiter for weeks, waiting to pick up U.S. cargo en route to foreign countries. This doesn’t occur among the pristine U.S. San Juan Islands or in other U.S. waters where these U.S. trade and shipping activities should be based.

The time has come for the governments of Canada and B.C. to strengthen environmental and transport regulations to reduce the disparity between the way Canada and the U.S. balance the benefits of industrial activities against protecting the health and well-being of the environment and the public.

James Kerr is a retired Environment Canada senior research scientist who participated in many national and international issues, including making substantial contributions to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports that won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t think the province of B.C. is innocent in the trade according to a provincial ministry:

Quote

B.C. mines provide much of the coal flowing through Metro Vancouver. Even as coal production enters a prolonged decline around much of the world, it has been positively thriving west of the Rocky Mountains.

“Coal production is a mainstay of the province’s economy, generating billions of dollars in annual revenue and supporting thousands of well-paid jobs,” reads the website for B.C.’s Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/yes-anti-pipeline-vancouver-really-is-north-americas-largest-exporter-of-coal

The Greens and the NDP have been uncharacteristically quiet on BC coal......Alberta oil, not so much!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Electric car start-ups — once seen as threat — now struggle to survive

Published 5 hours agoUpdated 4 hours ago
Key Points
  • Since the beginning of the decade, a partial list of EV failures includes Bright Automotive, AMP, Aptera, Coda, Detroit Electric, Fisker Automotive and LeEco.
  • While some of the names on the list were seriously underfunded, others generated plenty of cash.
  • Fisker, one of the most notable flame-outs, raised more than $2 billion in cash
 
Faraday Future's FF 91 prototype electric crossover vehicle is shown at a press event for CES 2017 at The Pavilions at Las Vegas Market on January 3, 2017 in Las Vegas.
Getty Images

Often billed as China's Steve Jobs, Chinese entrepreneur Jia Yueting has filed for bankruptcy in a Delaware court, claiming he owes about $3.6 billion to his various creditors. The move could complicate the already perilous situation for the electric car start-up Jia helped launch, Faraday Future.

Itself laden with debt after losing about $2.15 billion since it was founded in 2014, a number of analysts warn that Faraday could become the latest in a growing list of once-promising battery-car start-ups to short circuit.

 

Vacuum maker Dyson on Oct. 10 pulled the plug on its own electric vehicle program before building a single vehicle. Founder James Dyson told employees in an e-mail he could "no longer see a way to make it commercially viable."

Since the beginning of the decade, a partial list of EV failures also includes Bright Automotive, AMP, Aptera, Coda, Detroit Electric, Fisker Automotive and LeEco, the latter also founded by China's Jia.

"Almost none of the battery-electric start-ups has had enough air under their wings to take off," said Anton Wahlman, an analyst and electric vehicle consultant.

While some of the names on the list were seriously underfunded, others generated plenty of cash. Fisker, one of the most notable flame-outs, raised more than $2 billion in cash and, unlike some of the other start-ups, did manage to put a vehicle, the plug-in hybrid Karma, into production.

Dyson, best known for its bagless vacuum cleaners, bladeless fans and high-velocity hand dryers, had planned to invest $2.7 billion to get its own EV program going. It had about 600 employees at the time the company's founder announced the project's termination, and it was preparing to set up a factory in Singapore to build a line of products expected to begin with a three-row crossover, according to patent documents that leaked out last May.

"This is a challenging time for our colleagues and I appreciate your understanding and sensitivity as we consult with those who are affected," Dyson wrote his employees in an e-mail first revealed by tech website The Verge. "This is not a product failure, or a failure of the team, for whom this news will be hard to hear and digest. Their achievements have been immense – given the enormity and complexity of the project."

Each of these start-ups ran into some unique headwinds. After Fisker declared bankruptcy in November 2013, analysts pointed to a variety of factors, including quality issues that delayed production of the Karma and caused several fires that created publicity problems, as well as a series of management mistakes that burned through the company's cash reserves.

Karma hasn't been the only one to underestimate its financial needs. If anything, that's a thread running through many of the failures, according to senior analyst Sam Abuelsamid, of Navigant Research.

 
An onlooker observes the 2009 Fisker Karma, with plug-in hybrid technology called Q DRIVE, developed by Quantum Technologies exclusively for Fisker Automotive. The Karma's Q DRIVE configuration consists of a small gasoline engine that turns the generator, which charges the lithium ion battery pack, powering the electric motor and turning the rear wheels.  Estimated price starts at $80,000.
Photo: Oliver Quillia for CNBC.com

The start-ups, on the whole, have "found out building a car is a lot more complicated than they thought, even if an EV powertrain is simpler than a gas powertrain," he said. "Trying to scale up to manufacture a complex machine is very difficult as the upstarts have become aware of."

Even Tesla, the only EV start-up that has made a real go of it in the U.S. market, has had to repeatedly raise new funding while generating only a handful of profitable quarters.

Complicating matters, EV start-ups largely misread the potential EV market, Abuelsamid added. Many shared the overly optimistic view of the Obama administration, which had anticipated that about 1.5 million plug-based vehicles would be sold annually by 2015.

"The EV market has not developed at the pace a lot of people thought in 2009 and 2010," said Abeulsamid. "It has taken a lot longer for EV adoption to pick up and that means a smaller market for these companies to grab."

The good news for those EV companies that have survived like Tesla is that sales for the battery car market were up 81% last year and continued to grow during the first nine months of 2019, hitting about 235.959 by the end of September. But that number was up by barely 1,200 plug-ins and pure battery-electric vehicles, or BEVs, sold through the end of September the year before, reflecting a sharp slump during the third quarter.

Despite the numerous failures of the past decade, there are plenty of start-ups still willing to give it a try. That includes such companies as Bollinger which, last month, revealed production versions of its first two models, a heavy-duty pickup and a heavy-duty SUV, both promised to go into low-volume production at a plant in the Detroit suburbs next year.

 
Rivian EV SUV.
Adam Jeffery | CNBC

One of the most closely watched entrants is Rivian, another suburban Detroit venture that showed off its own battery-electric pickup and SUV models at the Los Angeles Motor Show last November. Rivian is considered one of the more likely success stories, said analyst Wahlman, because of the massive cash infusions it has generated from, among other sources Ford and Amazon. The online retailer recently committed to purchasing 100,000 battery-powered trucks that Rivian plans to assemble at an old Mitsubishi car plant in Normal, Illinois it has acquired.

"That's going to pump in enough money to keep them alive until at least 2030," Wahlman forecast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/18/2019 at 12:10 PM, Marshall said:

Still want to know how Greta traveled to Calgary and then Edmonton from the US.  Shanks Mare?  I bet not. One of her next stops is South America.  Will the prevailing winds carry her there or perhaps some oil fueled transportation. 

Found this gem....
 

“ After our daughter of fifteen years of age was moved to tears by the speech of Greta Thunberg at the UN the other day, she became angry with our generation “who had been doing nothing for thirty years.”

So, we decided to help her prevent what the girl on TV announced of “massive eradication and the disappearance of entire ecosystems.”

We are now committed to give our daughter a future again, by doing our part to help cool the planet four degrees. 

From now on she will go to school on a bicycle, because driving her by car costs fuel, and fuel puts emissions into the atmosphere. Of course it will be winter soon and then she will want to go by bus, but only as long as it is a diesel bus. 

Somehow, that does not seem to be conducive to ‘helping the Climate’. 

Of course, she is now asking for an electric bicycle, but we have shown her the devastation caused to the areas of the planet as a result of mining for the extraction of Lithium and other minerals used to make batteries for electric bicycles, so she will be pedaling, or walking. Which will not harm her, or the planet. We used to cycle and walk to school too. 

Since the girl on TV demanded “we need to get rid of our dependency on fossil fuels” and our daughter agreed with her, we have disconnected the heat vent in her room. The temperature is now dropping to twelve degrees in the evening, and will drop below freezing in the winter, we have promised to buy her an extra sweater, hat, tights, gloves and a blanket. 

For the same reason we have decided that from now on she only takes a cold shower. She will wash her clothes by hand, with a wooden washboard, because the washing machine is simply a power consumer and since the dryer uses natural gas, she will hang her clothes on the clothes line to dry. 

Speaking of clothes, the ones that she currently has are all synthetic, so made from petroleum. Therefore on Monday, we will bring all her designer clothing to the secondhand shop. 

We have found an eco store where the only clothing they sell is made from undyed and unbleached linen, wool and jute. 

It shouldn’t matter that it looks good on her, or that she is going to be laughed at, dressing in colorless, bland clothes and without a wireless bra, but that is the price she has to pay for the benefit of The Climate. 

Cotton is out of the question, as it comes from distant lands and pesticides are used for it. Very bad for the environment. 

We just saw on her Instagram that she’s pretty angry with us. This was not our intention. 

From now on, at 7 p.m. we will turn off the WiFi and we will only switch it on again the next day after dinner for two hours. In this way we will save on electricity, so she is not bothered by electro-stress and will be totally isolated from the outside world. This way, she can concentrate solely on her homework. At eleven o’clock in the evening we will pull the breaker to shut the power off to her room, so she knows that dark is really dark. That will save a lot of CO2.

She will no longer be participating in winter sports to ski lodges and resorts, nor will she be going on anymore vacations with us, because our vacation destinations are practically inaccessible by bicycle. 

Since our daughter fully agrees with the girl on TV that the CO2 emissions and footprints of her great-grandparents are to blame for ‘killing our planet’, what all this simply means, is that she also has to live like her great-grandparents and they never had a holiday, a car or even a bicycle. 

We haven’t talked about the carbon footprint of food yet. 

Zero CO2 footprint means no meat, no fish and no poultry, but also no meat substitutes that are based on soy (after all, that grows in farmers fields, that use machinery to harvest the beans, trucks to transport to the processing plants, where more energy is used, then trucked to the packaging/canning plants, and trucked once again to the stores) and also no imported food, because that has a negative ecological effect. And absolutely no chocolate from Africa, no coffee from South America and no tea from Asia. 

Only homegrown potatoes, vegetables and fruit that have been grown in local cold soil, because greenhouses run on boilers, piped in CO2 and artificial light. Apparently, these things are also bad for The Climate. We will teach her how to grow her own food. 

Bread is still possible, but butter, milk, cheese and yogurt, cottage cheese and cream come from cows and they emit CO2. No more margarine and no oils will be used for the frying pan, because that fat is palm oil from plantations in Borneo where rain forests first grew. 

No ice cream in the summer. No soft drinks and no energy drinks, as the bubbles are CO2. She wanted to lose some pounds, well, this will help her achieve that goal too. 

We will also ban all plastic, because it comes from chemical factories. Everything made of steel and aluminum must also be removed. Have you ever seen the amount of energy a blast furnace consumes or an aluminum smelter? Uber bad for the climate! 

We will replace her 9600 coil, memory foam pillow top mattress, with a jute bag filled with straw,with a horse hair pillow. 

And finally, she will no longer be using makeup, soap, shampoo, cream, lotion, conditioner, toothpaste and medication. Her sanitary napkins will be replaced with pads made of linen, that she can wash by hand, with her wooden washboard, just like her female ancestors did before climate change made her angry at us for destroying her future. 

In this way we will help her to do her part to prevent mass extinction, water levels rising and the disappearance of entire ecosystems. 

If she truly believes she wants to walk the talk of the girl on TV, she will gladly accept and happily embrace her new way of life. “ 

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If everyone conformed to the above lifestyle we would be able to hit our targets.

For anyone thinking it's too harsh though, this should get us about halfway there:

- Complete moratorium on domestic air travel, International flights only. This would not apply to remote domestic locations with no (or limited/seasonal) road access or MEDEVAC/SAR

- Immediate carbon tax raise to $300 per ton, all proceeds going to green energy incentives and public transit, including a resurgence of rail travel;

- Complete moratorium on agricultural exports. Producers would be limited to the domestic market only;

- Immediate lowering of speed limits to 90 KPH and rigid enforcement with photo radar. All proceeds to incentives and public transit.

This is only a good start, the other half of the cuts would be split between the energy and industrial sector. Each would be assigned a mandatory cut threshold and would negotiate the source (with government) independently. The transportation sector would be subject to achieving mandatory targets developed with industry input/timelines.  And all good Liberals said..... amen.

Now, imagine any government suggesting such a hare brained idea ever getting elected. 

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


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

carbon tax raise to $300 per ton

Look up photosynthesis and tell me what happens when we reduce carbon.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Fido said:

Look up photosynthesis and tell me what happens when we reduce carbon.

LOL, look up $300 per ton, then add the other suggestions and tell me what happens to our economy.  

6CO2  + 6H2O ------> C6H12O6  + 6O2    is likely to be the least of our worries. People who live in poverty are always the least concerned about the environment.... they struggle just to survive. As our economy tanked, those who championed climate action without acknowledging the price would start to lose their commitment to the cause. Can you imagine people in Ontario driving the speed limit?

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a study done by the University of Alberta that said the trees downwind of Fort McMurray started growing faster as the output of carbon increased. 

Some greenhouses pump in CO2 to increase production

We need Carbon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Wolfhunter said:

If everyone conformed to the above lifestyle we would be able to hit our targets.

For anyone thinking it's too harsh though, this should get us about halfway there:

- Complete moratorium on domestic air travel, International flights only. This would not apply to remote domestic locations with no (or limited/seasonal) road access or MEDEVAC/SAR

- Immediate carbon tax raise to $300 per ton, all proceeds going to green energy incentives and public transit, including a resurgence of rail travel;

- Complete moratorium on agricultural exports. Producers would be limited to the domestic market only;

- Immediate lowering of speed limits to 90 KPH and rigid enforcement with photo radar. All proceeds to incentives and public transit.

This is only a good start, the other half of the cuts would be split between the energy and industrial sector. Each would be assigned a mandatory cut threshold and would negotiate the source (with government) independently. The transportation sector would be subject to achieving mandatory targets developed with industry input/timelines.  And all good Liberals said..... amen.

Now, imagine any government suggesting such a hare brained idea ever getting elected. 

BUT - if only Canada participated, the net effect on the world would be less than zero. If ALL nations participated...well, that's just fantasy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our planets plant life is already on a starvation diet of CO2.

Ever see all those nice renditions of the era of the dinosaurs?  Beautiful and lush with vegetation and plant life.  That was because the CO2 in the atmosphere was more than 4 times todays levels.  Life went on (well not for the dinosaurs but you know what I mean).

So we have a brainwashed population trying to reduce carbon which in turn will reduce crop yields.  Not bright.

We have companies like Bayer (Monsanto) who want to patent and own your food by genetically modifying it.

We have governments all over the planet supporting this cimate initiative.

So tell yourself.  In the future will you be able to feed yourself or will you have to rely on greenhouse grown genetically modified and patented food sold to you by a lare multinational corporation? 

I suspect we are headed down a path that puts us at the mercy of the government.  (for the conspiracy theorists out there.  The NWO)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Moon The Loon said:

BUT - if only Canada participated, the net effect on the world would be less than zero.

Our net effect is already less than zero. Our landmass scrubs 20% more carbon than we produce.

After we have completely wrecked our economy, we will have reduced our emissions by about 0.7%. and dropped to 1% of global emissions. Cool eh?

IMO, methane is the enemy yet you hear very little about it. If (or more precisely when) there is a massive ice melt and sea level increase, the warm water currents (Gulf Stream etc) will be curtailed by the influx of fresh water and we will most likely have a mini ice age. It's a repeatable cycle and nothing we do or don't do will change the outcome. My property was once under salt water.... it most certainly will be again at some point in the future. I suspect I will miss the next buying opportunity.

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Wolfhunter said:

Our net effect is already less than zero. Our landmass scrubs 20% more carbon than we produce.

After we have completely wrecked our economy, we will have reduced our emissions by about 0.7%. and dropped to 1% of global emissions. Cool eh?

IMO, methane is the enemy yet you hear very little about it. If (or more precisely when) there is a massive ice melt and sea level increase, the warm water currents (Gulf Stream etc) will be curtailed by the influx of fresh water and we will most likely have a mini ice age. It's a repeatable cycle and nothing we do or don't do will change the outcome. My property was once under salt water.... it most certainly will be again at some point in the future. I suspect I will miss the next buying opportunity.

Actually H2O is the single largest contributor to global climate change.  There is far more water in the atmosphere that CO2 and it has a greater effect.  DRAIN THE OCEANS AND LAKES

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suzuki funded waste of courts time.

Canadian teens to sue Ottawa over government's role in climate change

Teenage Canadian activists are planning to sue the federal government over climate change, claiming Ottawa's role in perpetuating the crisis violates their fundamental rights.

15 teens claim federal officials are violating their rights to life, liberty and equality

CBC News · Posted: Oct 23, 2019 7:27 AM PT | Last Updated: 4 hours ago
 
vancouver-climate-strike.jpg
Thousands of students participated in a strike in Vancouver to raise awareness about the threat climate change poses to the planet and the futures of young people on Sept. 16. On Friday, 15 teens from across Canada say they plan to sue the federal government over its environmental policies. ((Evan Mitsui/CBC))

Teenage Canadian activists are planning to sue the federal government over climate change, claiming Ottawa's role in perpetuating the crisis violates their fundamental rights.

The impending lawsuit from 15 teens across Canada will claim they have "suffered specific, individualized injuries" due to climate change, interfering with their constitutional rights to life, liberty and security of the person.

They are also claiming the government's "contribution" to high levels of greenhouse gases and climate change infringes on their right to equality, since young people are disproportionately affected by long-term effects of a deteriorating climate.

 

In an unusual move, the intent to file the lawsuit was announced Wednesday by the David Suzuki Foundation, which is backing the teens by supporting the case's legal framework and acting as a communications lead. The foundation said they plan to file in federal court on Friday ahead of a climate strike in Vancouver.

A statement from the foundation said the lawsuit will call on the federal government to "protect young Canadians, do its fair share to stabilize the climate system and avert the catastrophic consequences of climate change." 

 
climate-strike-vancouver.jpg
Students participate in a climate strike on the University of British Columbia campus in Vancouver on Sept. 27, 2019. Young people joined the demonstration across the city. (Ben Nelms/CBC)

The Canadian youth, comprised of teens from eight provinces and the Northwest Territories, are being represented by high-profile constitutional lawyer Joseph Arvay. Sierra Robinson, a 16-year-old activist from B.C.'s Cowichan Valley, was the only teen plaintiff named in the statement Wednesday.

The lawsuit is the latest in a series of legal actions filed by youth around the world in recent years. A group of young Americans sued the U.S. federal government in 2015, accusing federal officials and oil industry executives of violating their due process rights by knowing for decades that carbon pollution poisons the environment, but doing nothing about it.

The rash of lawsuits, including the Canadian effort, are supported by Our Children's Trust, a nonprofit organization that says it's dedicated to protecting natural systems for present and future generations. 

Sustainibiliteens, the teenage rally organizers who have organized previous climate strikes in Vancouver, say they are set to speak about the lawsuit ahead of Friday's rally. Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg, 16, plans to go to the Vancouver protest.

 

Organizer Samathan Lin, 17, is not a plaintiff but said Sustainibiliteens supports the lawsuit.

"This is a really, really important next step," Lin said Tuesday. "It's one step closer to the goal that we have: making climate change more of a priority ... and making government accountable."

Share this post


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

So we have a brainwashed population trying to reduce carbon which in turn will reduce crop yields. 

Just recently there was an executive from the University of Alberta that had a few billboards put up around town that stated Climate Change would create greater yields in barley crops and benefit Alberta farmers.

She was pilloried and had to resign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Court case would need to find difinitive proof of climate change.  This could be a good thing.

All sides would need to provide proof that it either is or is not happening.

Let the real science reign, not the "paid for by the government propaganda machine" science

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Fido said:

Just recently there was an executive from the University of Alberta that had a few billboards put up around town that stated Climate Change would create greater yields in barley crops and benefit Alberta farmers.

She was pilloried and had to resign.

But she was absolutely correct.  Interesting the way that works.

I learned in Grade school that Plant life took in CO2 and expelled Oxygen.  Greater amounts of CO2 increase growth rates a resilience. This is why Greenhouses add CO2 to the air inside.and why the flowers and plants look awesome in the greenhouse but start to dwindle when taken home.

We are witnessing the greatest scam any government has ever pulled off.  They are actually taxing AIR.  The people behind it must be laughing all the way to a bank in the caymans

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, basically you are correct.

However, I think the issue is that the world's major carbon sinks, the Amazon, Asian forests, and the plankton in oceans, are being destroyed and that is what is leading to the spike in CO2 levels.

Doesn't matter what grows here, it's what's happening elsewhere that is going to end it.

So with the current attitude towards 'global' CO2, we're basically doomed, and the earth will repopulate eventually.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rex Murphy...nails it every time :Clap-Hands:

This mess of an election has definitely changed the climate in the West


“ Let me revise the famous McKenna chant — the environment and the economy go hand in hand. No they don’t. You can only have an environmental policy when you have an economy that can support its imperatives. I’ve written before: you can choose Paris, or you can choose Calgary. And up to now, it’s been Paris all the way.”

 

” But when you’ve got the end of the world as your calling card, and a leader who gladly appoints herself as the instrument of that same world’s salvation — a most powerful pitch — then surely, after 13 years of trying, you should be doing better than electing three candidates in a Parliament of 338. And if, as so many are still saying, this was a climate-change election, then the one leader who has made climate change her brand and banner, and who in a CBC interview stated “I have to save the whole world,” and worse, obviously believes she can, would have done better than adding one more member to an already unwieldy caucus of two.“

 

“ Why is the West so ticked off? Because it has come to realize that every climate sermon from Trudeau or Environment Minister Catherine McKenna is a blast at Canada’s energy industry, and another swipe in particular at Alberta. They have realized that Trudeau’s over-dramatization of climate change, and his insistence — against all logic — that Canada has any significant role at all in reducing global emissions, has worked to the exclusion and denigration of Alberta’s standing in the Confederation.“

 

” So was climate change the issue of this election? Well, in this darkly ironic manner — yes. The result of the fixation on climate change is a deeply fractured Parliament, the return of Quebec separatism with a 32-seat block for the Bloc, and no government representation for an entire region of the country. Yeah, climate change did play a great part in election 2019, while politicians danced with the world-savers, then neglected the home base.

 

 

 

 

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/election-2019/rex-murphy-this-mess-of-an-election-has-definitely-changed-the-climate-in-the-west?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1572033058

Edited by Jaydee
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

and his insistence — against all logic — that Canada has any significant role at all in reducing global emissions

This seems to have been lost on Canadians. Maybe it's because people don't like to think of themselves as insignificant. But in the realm of global emissions, you can't get any less significant than we are. 

On a yearly basis, we produce 1.7% of global emissions, our land mass scrubs all of that plus 20% more..... so, we have already achieved net zero. In order to go from 1.7% to 1.0%, we would have to entirely trash our economy by eliminating major portions of the farming, transportation, industrial and energy sectors. Even if we wanted to do that, no one, and I mean NO ONE, will even discuss what portion of those sectors we should cut.

The magnitude of the effort for such a minimal effect seems entirely lost on a society that annually spends in excess of 7 billion on obesity. Until you (we us) can do something as simple as putting the fork down or deciding what sectors to cut (and by how much) hitting accord targets won't happen.

What we are really talking about here is analogous to a 400 lb man shedding 2.8 lbs by cutting off his right arm at the elbow because his doctor said he should lose weight. 

People seem to think the issue revolves around "is climate change real?" when, in fact, climate change is the norm and periods of static climate are (in a planetary sense) short lived. This thread proves my point, after 68 pages, we have yet to discuss which limb we (collectively) plan to sever, and, in a house full of mirrors, we can't even decide if we are fat or not.

 

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Wolfhunter said:

we have already achieved net zero

Maybe what the Liberals (and Mckenna) meant is that we can send more carbon into the atmosphere because we have a BIG cushion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the province with the highest median salary across the population in Canada.  An Unemployment rate only slightly higher than the national average. Is complaining?

The rest of Canada should have it so well.  Wexit would put an end to that prosperity pretty quick

 

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