Slaytanic Wehrmacht Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 They'll keep getting oil...AND they'll keep gouging anyone who fills up at the pump. Only two other things more certain...death and taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadMonk Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 So then one of the only ways to see if this is part of the natural cycle of normal events is to wait to see if it melts just as quickly or moreso next year, and if the melting is more widespread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxi Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 They'll keep getting oil...AND they'll keep gouging anyone who fills up at the pump. Only two other things more certain...death and taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted July 26, 2012 Author Share Posted July 26, 2012 The immediate cause for such a widespread melt is high temperatures, and for extreme weather events there are usually a return period (e.g. one in a hundred year storm). The way it is described in the news I think they are referring to a return period of 150 years. This is different from saying that there is a cycle of 150 years. Natural cycle seems to be tossed around as a catch-all explanation to everything, but a true natural cycle such as El Nino/Southern Oscillation (ENSO), have real physical causes, and as a result the time scale depends on these processes. Unless either a clear 150 year cycle can be identified from data, and a clear physical mechanism for it, the event should not be described as a cycle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaytanic Wehrmacht Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Look at what percentage of what you pay at the pump is going to the government. Taxes. You get taxed. The people who produce the oil get taxed. The peope who sell the oil get taxed. That all gets passed to the consumer. 33% of what you pay is taxes directly from you. Now factor in the income tax the people who produce, transport, supply, etc... the gas have to pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Just curious: I know this board is chock full of Liberal government haters, so with climate change in mind, how does everyone feel about the carbon tax? Is that not doing something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Essentially the question is "Would you rather human existence end in fire or ice?" My answer would be...if extinction was truly imminent...would it really MATTER which killed us? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Just curious: I know this board is chock full of Liberal government haters, so with climate change in mind, how does everyone feel about the carbon tax? Is that not doing something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted July 26, 2012 Author Share Posted July 26, 2012 Liberal policy should have been a godsend to global warming crusaders. From pushing wind farms and run of river energy sources to instituting an escalating carbon tax to closing Burrard thermal we should be a bastion of ecozelotry delights! However, as it turns out, those programs weren't exactly warmly embraced by the population nor have we seen any sort of noticible change in people behaviour (other than being extra pissed off every time they buy gas). And one only need to ask the federal liberals (what's left of them) what a good idea it is to campaign on the idea of a federal carbon tax! Bon idee pour le opposition! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadMonk Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 We are pursuing renewables. There are many companies implementing those very things. I would suggest they make a good investment if your willing to go long on them! Though as we just saw in BC even when government subsidises renewables to encourage their developement you still have enviromental opponants, opposition of funds given to private industry, and higher costs/taxes to the public as a result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadMonk Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Well - there's a little thing called supply and demand - as long as there's a demand, the Oil companies will keep getting oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaytanic Wehrmacht Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 They were in comparison to the Conservatives. I am not a Liberal supporter either. Never have been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted July 26, 2012 Author Share Posted July 26, 2012 For those of you who want to do something pro-active, you can go here to sign a petition to put pressure on Premier Christy Clark to reject the Northern Pipeline carrying Tar Sands Oil to the B.C. Coast. Right now, premiers from across Canada are in Halifax to discuss the fate of a dangerous proposal -- a mega tar oil pipeline that would slice through the heart of the Great Bear Rainforest and put its fragile ecosystem at risk. But one woman stands in the way -- and our massive outcry could get her to delay, and even bury this project for good. B.C. Premier Christy Clark knows that the hugely unpopular deal could cost her party critical votes in the upcoming election, so for the first time, she has publicly said she won’t green-light the project, unless Enbridge and others meet several of her economic and environmental demands. It’s a start, but it’s not enough. If tens of thousands of us act now, we can persuade her to stay firm, delay the project and even carry it to its deathbed Pressure on Christy Clark is mounting -- as the head of the province where the pipe will end, she has tremendous power to put the brakes on this reckless deal. Call on her to reject the Northern Gateway pipeline by signing the petition below and forward it to everyone. When we reach 50,000 signatures, it’ll be delivered straight to the meeting in Halifax: To the Premier of British Columbia Christy Clark : As concerned citizens we call on you to fully reject Enbridge’s proposal to build a 1177 km pipeline from Alberta through the Great Bear rainforest to British Columbia’s Pacific Coast. The risks are far worse than any rewards Enbridge or any other province could offer and we therefore count on you to resist any pressure from all bodies calling on you to grant approval for the Northern Gateway Pipeline. http://www.avaaz.org...bOVMtbb&v=16614 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 When the alternatives become cheaper/better the demand will plummet. It won't go to zero as oil as other industrial uses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted July 26, 2012 Author Share Posted July 26, 2012 Don't forget the costs to implement the infrastructure...IE, say we replace gasoline engines with electrical - infrastructure will need to be upgraded to handle the load of people plugging in their cars and tElectrical Stations replacing Gas Stations...so people can stop and "juice" up. Or maybe we'll have fusion powered cars? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaytanic Wehrmacht Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 More job creation through a green industrial revolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dittohead Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Odd to go that far over the top when in fact methane gas releases from cows are in fact a significant contributor of greenhouse gases what with methane apparently being 20x as effective at keeping in the heat as CO2. Also, a pure insult is certainly not on topic nor is it considered respectful. If you want to call out others for not following board rules consider leading by example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaytanic Wehrmacht Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Don't let them know about water vapour. the worst greenhouse gas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 I am planning to as soon as I start earning a real salary! Ultimately, whether people oppose or support a particular policy depends on whether they see value in it, and yes when you make a decision there is always going to be winners and losers. It always comes back down to whether people are willing to look at the facts about global warming and make the hard decision. Many are avoiding this by creating red herrings: - "but but but jobs!" - "Environmentalist are all nut jobs. " - "Environmentalism is a religion." - "Science is uncertain." When is last time any decision is made with absolute certainty? Science is always uncertain, and if the uncertainty were between warming or cooling than there is a point of inaction. When the uncertainty is between bad but manageable, bad or catastrophic, failure to make a decision is being spineless, not keeping an open mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted July 26, 2012 Author Share Posted July 26, 2012 Don't let them know about water vapour. the worst greenhouse gas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.