Sign in to follow this  
Malcolm

Time for a topic on What is going to help prevent Global Warming

Recommended Posts

Wolfhunter    135

From what I’ve seen of other “good ideas”, even denier math and twisted numbers will fall short of the actual costs. In a few short years I will be asking: “what did you think was going to happen?” I will ask where the supporters of this good idea have gone and why they are so quiet. I’ll suggest they pay the bill for what they insisted they thought they might want. I’ll ask them to defend the program they previously championed… and hear only crickets. 

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/08/04/carbon-pricing-is-the-new-snake-oil

Given that the mindset here is similar to that required to declare undying support for the long gun registry, I find myself with nothing more to add... I'll leave you to it. It will simply serve as yet another lesson in "good ideas". I see the sanctuary city "good idea" is working out pretty well too.

 

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
boestar    600

now run the same analysis over the last 10,000 years.  That is what the people profiting off of this don't want you to see.

Alberta was a tropical climate at one time according to the fossil records.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gator    14
30 minutes ago, boestar said:

now run the same analysis over the last 10,000 years.  That is what the people profiting off of this don't want you to see.

Alberta was a tropical climate at one time according to the fossil records.  

How about 11,000 years?

http://www.realclimate.org/images/Marcott.png

Let's not confuse local climate to global climate.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/paleoclimate-the-end-of-the-holocene/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DEFCON    684

I don't know how to debate this issue as I think mankind is a giant environmental problem and something does need to be done to address the mess we make, but I'll never be able to support crazy tax initiatives that politicians come up to mask their own impotency as leaders.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moon The Loon    296
On 8/3/2017 at 7:28 AM, boestar said:

4th hottest on record.. 4th?  so by that statement alone there is no need for alarm then.  The globe is not warming it is just a fluctuation in the climate. Perhaps when we experience the warmest on record for a few years in a row we can be alarmed.

 

Try a few centuries in a row.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Malcolm    646

The Global Warming "Blame Game"

Why you shouldn’t blame everything unusual on climate change

 
‎Today, ‎August ‎9, ‎2017, ‏‎19 minutes ago | Tristin Hopper

Seasonal allergies? Climate change. Dead whales washing up somewhere? Climate change. A civil war in Syria? Climate change.

Climate change is warming the planet and imparting a future of more frequent and intense extreme weather. But that doesn’t mean it’s singularly responsible for absolutely everything strange that happens around the world.

A telling example is the recent calving of a P.E.I-sized iceberg from Antarctica’s Larsen Ice Shelf. Immediately, the event was taken up as the best evidence going of a Planet Earth literally coming apart at the seams.

The Larsen C ice shelf has broken away from Antarctica, a jarring reminder of why we must solve the climate crisis. https://t.co/3ddOminhX3

— Al Gore (@algore) July 12, 2017

 

But according to the scientists who actually study the ice shelf, the whole thing probably would have happened anyway.

“The Larsen C rift and iceberg ‘calving’ is not a warning of imminent sea level rise, and any link to climate change is far from straightforward,” wrote Swansea University glaciologist Adrian Luckman.

A rift between Larsen C and the new iceberg had been forming ever since the 1980s. And while warming temperatures have generally been decimating global ice cover, Larsen C has actually been getting thicker.

Blaming everything unusual on climate change is akin to the guy who claims climate change is a hoax because it’s cold outside.

A classic example is U.S. Senator James Inhofe, who in 2015 used a thrown snowball as evidence that the world actually wasn’t warming.

 

The continued existence of winter, however, does not discount the continued aggregate warming of the planet. Similarly, the evidence for climate change is a bit more detailed than “I saw some weird weather in the news.”

Take a look at almost any recent bout of extreme weather and there’s probably a historical equivalent.

Droughts are hitting North America? The Dust Bowl of the 1930s still stands as the worst of the last millennium.

B.C. is being ravaged by forest fires? In 1950, Alberta wildfires became so intense that they plunged Toronto into darkness. The event remains the largest Canadian forest fire on record.

Phoenix was recently hit by a heat wave so intense it began to melt city infrastructure. And yet, the highest temperature ever recorded in the city, 50 degrees Celsius, occurred a generation ago on June 26, 1990.

phoenix is literally melting and some of y'all still wanna global warming is a hoax???? pic.twitter.com/t19JYGoIwa

— annie (@AnnieBPorter) June 26, 2017

 

Look at the boring aggregated numbers, though, and the situation isn’t so normal: Sixteen of the world’s seventeen warmest years on record have occurred since 2001, and global sea ice cover is definitely going down.

These changes are almost impossible to detect anecdotally. That’s why they need to be tracked with vast networks of satellites, weather observatories and lab-coated PhDs hunched over spreadsheets.

And even then, the consensus science is still pretty general: It’s getting hotter, humans are causing it and it’s screwing with everything — but science is still working on finding out how.

Take NASA’s Earth Observatory, who give this measured assessment of global warming’s effect on natural disasters: “Climate change may not be responsible for the recent skyrocketing cost of natural disasters, but it is very likely that it will impact future catastrophes.”

A similar tone was struck in a recently leaked special report prepared by 13 U.S. federal agencies. Citing libraries of data, the report’s authors confidently provided a sobering portrait of a warming world, but they often treaded carefully around the specifics what that warming was doing to the weather.

“Some storm types such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and winter storms are also exhibiting changes that have been linked to climate change, although the current state of the science does not permit detailed understanding,” it read.

The coming years will see climate change damage industries, eliminate species and kill people. But it will often be hard to tell which are the product of greenhouse gas emissions, and which would have happened anyway.

 

Think of it like an economic forecast.

Economists, for example, can confidently say that unemployment kills people. A 2011 megastudy analyzing 20 million patient records found that men and women without jobs were at much higher risk of mortality.

“Unemployment was associated with a substantially increased risk of death among broad segments of the population,” wrote authors.

What an economist wouldn’t do, however, is stand in a morgue and slap a “killed by unemployment” sticker on any corpse that had recently been laid off from its factory job. With or without a pink slip, maybe the worker would have died anyway.

Right now, the scientific big picture points to a planet that, on average, is going to be harder to handle: More powerful droughts, threatened coastal cities and intensified conflicts.

But that still doesn’t mean that Ben and Jerry’s ice cream gets to claim that climate change is literally coming to destroy the Statue of Liberty.

• Email: thopper@nationalpost.com | Twitter: TristinHopper

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
boestar    600

Good article.  balanced for a change. 

The issue I have will all of this Climate change stuff is that it is based wholly on whats "on the record" the record only goes back so far.  We have fossil records and ice core samples and bore hole samples dataing back millions of years that show plainly that the earth has been warmer and the earth has been colder.  Climate change with or without human intervention is inevitable.  Are we accelerating it? probably.  How much are we accelerating it?  no one really knows.  Can we stop it?  probably not.  Will we survive it?  more than likely.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gator    14

I do agree that GHG's may not be the only cause of global climate change. However, there is an extremely strong correlation between GHG production and  global temperature rise and no valid scientific study has been able to suggest another single cause of significance. Historical changes (over the past 11,000 years) have shown gradual temperature changes over tens of centuries. We are in a period of unprecedented temperature change over a much shorter period of time.  

I do find your last question and answer to be interesting, Boe... "more than likely". Would you get on an aircraft if it was "more than likely" that you would get safely to your destination?

Another question to add to your list ... Should we at least do whatever we can to try to de-accelerate it? Maybe the time that is bought will slow things down long enough to find better solutions.

What's the worst thing that can happen if we do try? What's the worst thing that can happen if we are having an effect, have the opportunity to fix it and we don't try?

The deniers' attitude of trying to find another reason that is "out of our control" to mirror the "me" society which we seem to find so distasteful in others when convenient. 

Global warming isn't happening.
The scientists are publishing data that gets them more grant money.
The scientific data is flawed.
Look, I can publish data twisted and with exclusions that refutes global warming.
It's been a cool summer in [insert example here]... global warming is a farce.
There was a period of warming in Norway in 1920. See, global warming is just like temporary regional warming.
If global warming is true, we're not causing it, so nothing we do will stop global warming.
If global warming is true, we're only causing a bit of it, so we will have little effect on global warming if we reduce our output.
If we could stop global warming, it's too late.
There's a chance that mankind will survive unscathed even if global warming is happening.
Because of all of the above, I'm not willing to give up any small part of my lifestyle to help solve the problem.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DEFCON    684

gator

Let's go forward and pretend it's the year 2037. At that time Canadians and other western nations will have been carbon taxed for twenty years. Assume for the moment that In spite of the promises & predictions that came with the tax, unencumbered third world growth has increased the world's population to somewhere between 12 & 15 billion bodies and Canada hosts 1 billion of the total.

What do you think the human global carbon footprint will look like in 2037? What possible practical benefit to the natural environment will carbon taxation have served?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Malcolm    646
Quote

 

May 11 2016:

In the fight against climate change, forests play a critical role — drawing more greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere than they emit.

But when they burn, much of those stored gases are released back into the atmosphere.

So far, the fires in Fort McMurray have released the equivalent of roughly five per cent of Canada’s annual greenhouse gas emissions, said Werner Kurz, a senior research scientist with the Canadian Forest Service in charge of Canada’s National Forest Carbon Accounting System.

 

And to this we will be able to add the CO2 from the wave of fires in BC. Now factor in our population growth with it's impact on our CO2 emissions

 

Quote

 

Canada's population tops 36 million as immigrants, refugees swell numbers

Increase in people living in the country in 2016 the largest since 1988, Statistics Canada says

The data agency says there were 437,815 more people living in Canada than there were on the same day (July 01) a year earlier

 

We are fighting a loosing battle and taxes on carbon will not win it for us. What we need to do is to stabilize our population (births and immigrants should not be more than deaths). After all we are told we emit 13.5 tons of CO2 per capita in Canada.  So by adding 437,815 bodies to our population the numbers can not help but to grow.  Throw unexpected increases due to forest fires, we are def. on a slippery downward path that can only result in an increase in emissions. Once we have done this, perhaps we can then pay attention to reducing the emissions of our stabilized population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gator    14

DEFCON... the government will exact the same amount of money from the population by 2037 whether they are called carbon tax or income tax. But, those who choose to reduce their carbon footprint will save some of that tax. In other words, people who choose NOT to reduce their carbon footprint and continue to create GHGs will pay more tax than those who conserve.  It's entirely up to you. Whether it makes a difference to climate change probably won't be determined by 2037 because CO2 hangs around for a long time. Jurisdictions around the world that have carbon taxes prove that they do not destroy economies or drive business out.

Malcolm, remember that most of carbon produced is more closely related to middle to high income consumers... one of the reasons why first world countries have the highest production per capita. New Canadians from third world countries wouldn't produce as much as current Canadians in those groups or new Canadians from first world countries. No matter where immigrants come from, they will produce about the same amount of carbon, whether in their home country or in Canada. 

I don't understand why some always deflect to some "solution" other than their own consumption, basically blaming it on something else in an effort to avoid interference in their lifestyle. The only viable solution is if every global citizen, including Canadians, makes a solid effort to reduce carbon production. That will have a much more dramatic effect on GHGs than just trying to limit one country's population, a "solution" that will have much more dire impacts on quality of Canadian's lifestyle than reduction in GHGs. Our economy is based on growth. Without it, the national debt and deficit would grow very quickly.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Malcolm    646

gator,  you said:

Quote

 I don't understand why some always deflect to some "solution" other than their own consumption, basically blaming it on something else in an effort to avoid interference in their lifestyle.

My solution involves all of us but as with any problem you need to establish a start point and that would be, in my opinion, stabilizing our population first and then as I said "we can then pay attention to reducing the emissions of our stabilized population".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gator    14

Frankly, I think that a stabilized population is an unrealistic goal within the next few decades. So, by default, your solution avoids "us" from having to do anything and passes the problem on to the next generation.

 

And even if population growth went to zero today, without reductions now, CO2 production would remain at the current, unsustainable level that the earth cannot cope with. So, regardless as to if or when population is stabilized, reductions have to happen. That means that that should be the first step.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Malcolm    646
2 hours ago, gator said:

Frankly, I think that a stabilized population is an unrealistic goal within the next few decades. So, by default, your solution avoids "us" from having to do anything and passes the problem on to the next generation.

 

And even if population growth went to zero today, without reductions now, CO2 production would remain at the current, unsustainable level that the earth cannot cope with. So, regardless as to if or when population is stabilized, reductions have to happen. That means that that should be the first step.

gator you don't think a stabilized population in Canada is  realistic and I  think without it, the current carbon tax will continue to be just another way to get more money for the feds. I have nothing against reducing our output but I fail to see how this can be achieved by a Carbon Tax combined with a push to bring more people into Canada. More bodies = an increase in CO2 emissions. 

Canadians have one of the highest per capita rates of carbon emissions in the world. This is because we have:

  • A resource intensive economy,
  • Large vehicles driven long distances
  • Large houses in a cold climate
  • High levels of material consumption
  • Frequent plane travel.

Our inability to cut carbon emissions has given us the worst record of carbon emissions growth in the industrialized world. Canadas commitment to the Kyoto Accord took the form of a pledge to reduce our carbon emissions by the year 2012 to a level 6% below that of our emissions in 1990.

In 2013 our emissions were 30% higher than our Kyoto target making our record the second worst of the Accord's 58 signatories, just ahead of last place Saudi Arabia.

Where is the growth in emissions coming from? The two main drivers are mass immigration and the Alberta oil sands. (Balanced immigration would maintain our population at a stable level. Mass immigration is being used to increase our population by over 1 Toronto every decade)

Doubling our population will mean our per capita GHG emissions will have to be cut by 50% just to stand still. Clearly, cutting emissions while continuing to increase our population is not a viable plan.

In 2014 the oil sands were a rapidly growing but still minor (10%) contributor of national emissions compared to the 20% increase in population (6 million people) for which immigration is largely responsible.

Oil sands production will plateau at some level. Given the world economy and calls to leave the dirtiest oil in the ground, that level could be double that of today or half of it. In 2016, oil sands future production is cloudy. But the current national plan on the largest source of ghg emissions increase is to continue Canada's population growth forever.

In a finite world with an environment in decline, that plan must be challenged and reversed. Send a link to your friends and include a cartoon. Get the word out and start asking questions.

http://sustainablesociety.com/environment/carbon#.WY36U1HfpPY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gator    14
8 hours ago, Malcolm said:

In 2014 the oil sands were a rapidly growing but still minor (10%) contributor of national emissions compared to the 20% increase in population (6 million people) for which immigration is largely responsible.

Really? These guys take a contributory value of 10% and compare it to a growth rate? And a 20% increase... Canada's population grows at about 1% per year, of which about half is birth rate, and has done so since the early nineties. So, if they are suggesting "since" 1997, they'd be close, but the text implies an annual 20% growth.

Do I need to say it?.... twisted numbers.

The article suggests that Canada's per capita rate of carbon emissions is one of the highest and cites some valid reasons. If we use their logic, the best way to decrease the per capita rate is to bring immigrants in from third world countries. These immigrants will dilute the tar sands carbon per capita production, won't live in big houses, won't travel by plane, won't have high levels of material consumption and probably won't travel by car over large distances. Yet the article suggests that stopping immigration will  solve the per capita problem. If immigration stops and Canadians continue as they are, we will remain one of the highest per capita producers.  Unchanged unless our isolated and childless population improves the way we use energy.

There is reference to doubling the population... the projected population in 2056 in a moderate growth scenario is 42.5 million... an increase of about 20% from today (over 40 years), and growth is expected to decrease. Even in a high growth scenario, population might be as high as 50 million... a 40% growth over 40 years. I'll leave it to you to extrapolate to a doubling of our population. 

https://www.google.ca/search?q=canadian+population+trends&oq=canadian+population+trends&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l2j69i64l2.5191j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

BTW, who's going to mop the floors if we stop immigration?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DEFCON    684

gator

"The article suggests that Canada's per capita rate of carbon emissions is one of the highest and cites some valid reasons. If we use their logic, the best way to decrease the per capita rate is to bring immigrants in from third world countries. These immigrants will dilute the tar sands carbon per capita production, won't live in big houses, won't travel by plane, won't have high levels of material consumption and probably won't travel by car over large distances. Yet the article suggests that stopping immigration will  solve the per capita problem. If immigration stops and Canadians continue as they are, we will remain one of the highest per capita producers."

If there were only 10 people in Canada we'd still be one of the largest carbon emitters 'per capita'. If you add the carbon contributed by an extra 35 million bodies to the original 10, we can see how irrelevant the per capita consideration really is.

Until meaningful population controls are implemented, especially in the third world, initiatives involving carbon taxation should not be seen as anything other than political scams, which makes them unworthy of genuine consideration; I think you admit it when you say; "the government will exact the same amount of money from the population by 2037 whether they are called carbon tax or income tax".

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gator    14

I've said it before.... governments change the source/type of taxation to modify the behaviour of the populace. If you want to pay more tax than you need to, continue to use carbon fuels at a high rate. If you want to pay less taxes, use less fuel. Simple. 

If you think about it, this is actually the best type of tax for smart people who realize what is going on. People who aren't paying attention or who don't care will pay more taxes, to the benefit of those of us who choose to conserve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Homerun    46
3 hours ago, gator said:

I've said it before.... governments change the source/type of taxation to modify the behaviour of the populace. If you want to pay more tax than you need to, continue to use carbon fuels at a high rate. If you want to pay less taxes, use less fuel. Simple. 

If you think about it, this is actually the best type of tax for smart people who realize what is going on. People who aren't paying attention or who don't care will pay more taxes, to the benefit of those of us who choose to conserve.

So what behaviour is the government trying to modify with top income tax rates at 53.5% in numerous provinces?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DEFCON    684

"So what behaviour is the government trying to modify with top income tax rates at 53.5% in numerous provinces? "

Personal initiative? 

  •  
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
boestar    600

a Carbon tax is essentially a tax on breathing.  The government actually found a way to tax air.  We are supposed to stand idly by while we pay to breathe and the government frivolously spends our money on anything but fixing a problem that may or may not be fixable.

I have said it before and I will say it again...Caanada is a NET NEGATIVE carbon producer.  We clean more carbon from the air than we produce.  What exactly am I paying for?

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fido    380
2 hours ago, boestar said:

I have said it before and I will say it again...Caanada is a NET NEGATIVE carbon producer.  We clean more carbon from the air than we produce.  What exactly am I paying for?

I think that we need to say this 35 million more times and then maybe people in Canada will recognize it.

After all this is how the eco-fanatics sold this bill of goods to start with.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DEFCON    684

"The Sea Level Around Florida Is Rising Six Times Faster Than Average"

There's a growing number of sinkholes across the State too, which might mean the place is sinking into the ocean?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jaydee    405

According to the Fraser Institute think tank...

 

" Conference Board report misrepresents Canada’s air quality "

Canada’s air is among the cleanest in the world. The Conference Board’s faulty methodology paints a false picture of reality."

 

 

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/blogs/conference-board-report-misrepresents-canada-s-air-quality

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this