Miler

I hope you're not saying plastic in the ocean is better than having it safely disposed of in a landfill. Where exactly is this rich cultivable land that you speak of? Worrying about plastic buried in a landfill is like worrying about a fly that might land on an elephant's ass one day. Plastic Waste Plastic products are very common in our modern life. According to estimates, every year we use approximately 1.6 million barrels of oil just for producing plastic water bottles. Plastic waste is one of many types of wastes that take too long to decompose. Normally, plastic items can take up to 1000 years to decompose in landfills. But plastic bags we use in our everyday life take 10-1000 years to decompose, while plastic bottles can take 450 years or more. Let the singers sing and the dancers dance. We are the best at providing resources and we should excel at it. If we can make heavy industry work that would be great, but unlike the US and Russia (not a great example btw) we do not have a large domestic market to help out.

Lol. ok. Stuff deposited in the dump is pollution now. smh There's trees growing on the dumps of my youth. I thought it took thousands of years for plastic to break down. Is that a good thin or a bad thing? It's not something we need to worry about as long as it's safely buried and the land above is suitably reclaimed. Our mistake was trying to be too cute and send our plastics to wacky third world countries for recycling. Is that the stuff that's ending up dumped in Asian rivers and polluting the ocean? . You know better than that. Nothing guarantees a good economy.

You consider using plastic to be plastic pollution? I'm quite happy with plastic buried in a secure landfill. Better than the current option, cutting down forests. Dont be lazy. You do the math. No, I don't wonder why the rest of the world is developing faster. It's because we refuse to export our natural resources. Rich people like us don't need to waste our time building trinkets. We can just sit back, export our resources, and let the money flow in. But we were so rich we thought we could stop doing so and still maintain our luxurious status.

Really? I doubt it. No. It's because we wont provide our raw materials to the world. We don't need to build our own crap. If the perspective gets quashed, it is not valid. Get rid of it.

Watched hilights on TSN for 1 minute and it was confirmed why I do not watch. Four (3?) laughable penalties against the blues. An all too familiar joke.

Wind power is a hoax that munches birds , until batteries can be developed to store their energy. I was unsure about the bird issue due to conflicting reports, but recently i met a guy who services wind turbines and he was appalled by the dead birds surrounding the sites. One good thing about the cat issue is they're probably mostly munching on non native species that thrive in the cities. Wind turbines take the killing to the wild areas. I dont work for oil but like all Canadians I owe my cushy lifestyle to it.

No. Hydro power is the dirtiest fuel by far. Wind power is a bird killing hoax. Solar is fine. Ethanol is a joke environmentally. Nuclear is dangerous. Oil is the best fuel for the planet. Yes you are imagining it. Tornado activity may actually be declining , with 2018 being very low in activity. Hurricanes were worst in the 50s. Breathless media attention is at an all time high. Now you know and will never again be a victim of this media campaign. Here is a hurricane one.

No because there's lots of oil around. They'll never run out. It's just a wealth transfer out of Canada.

Most have no idea what environmentalism should be. You'd probably flood whats left of our precious valleys to suck up to Al Gore. For nothing. Go with the founder of Greenpeace. CFCs are bad though. https://twitter.com/ecosensenow?lang=fr

So why shouldn't we blame Alf?? lmao.

Pro enviro goons want to flood out our river valleys and destroy our native species and habitat. Worst of the worst. Oh, and now cutting down forests is a great replacement for plastic.

When you and your fans start coughing up five grand apiece every year in order to "keep the country together" you'll have earned the right to call Albertan's asses. Until then you can shut #$% $%^& %$.

Nah. The only reason she went nuts was because of his prudish rejection (and stupidity). She survived all the treason and tragedy. But I guess we will never know. lol.

I did not know who would kill her, but I knew it was going to happen. She did not seem particularly wacko when he offed her. The way it played out he literally would rather kill her than screw her and save the world.

Disgusting. John would rather murder the hottest women on earth, who he loves, than love her, rule with her, and save the world. Right. You know nothing John Snow.

Actually I didn't ask about sea levels because I think I know about the subject. It would be good if you let us know what the article says so we would know if we want to investigate it further. So what does it say. It might stoke my interest.

Summary?

A rabbit hole? I'd like an answer to the question. I wonder if anyone has one.

If we stop quibbling about the cause and just go with provable fact, we will do nothing at all. Sea level rise has not changed in our lifetime. All the extra CO2 hasn't changed a thing. It will be a century before we have to lay down a few sandbags.

Our discussion was about the 97% lie. Here is a reference for that. The previous reference was to illustrate the robust discussion which continues and is probably accelerating. https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#55dfde691157

Well Kate should know only 43% of climate scientists are as sure about things as she is. About 70% are pretty sure any warming effect is mainly caused by humans. Actually, I might also fall into that category. But If it's about warming caused by human CO2 emissions only, I would be out. I'm sure a few more of the climatologists would join me. So, stick to facts, not nonsense, so real discussions can occur. https://climatechangedispatch.com/254-new-papers-support-climate-skepticism/amp/

OMG. You must be kidding. They are still debasing themselves like this? You'll have to give a link. I can't see it.

Hard to believe anyone still quotes the 97% thing. The smallest amount of inquiry shows it to be a lie. Anyone quoting it is a moron or a politician.

In China electric cars should be called coal burning cars. In Canada you could call them fish burners with aspirations of adding birds to the fuel system. Add to that the submerged carbon eating forests and the methane spewing reservoirs. It's not good. Electric cars are no answer. If the electricity came from solar, nuclear, or geo thermal it might be worthwhile. If everyone was this enviro conscious it would be game over for the planet. Buy the smallest apartment in the tallest high rise and stay there. The planet will thank you. But it's a cool hobby. Have fun!

Canadian oil is usually cheaper. A few bucks in the right pockets make those dangerous pipelines the only issue that matters. Oil tankers on the east coast? Meh......