The Lock Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 2 minutes ago, I.Am.Ironman said: From an emissions stand point cruise ships are the real devil. Engines running full [gas]steam ahead 24/7 to power a casino, restaurant, club, hotel and whatever else is on board. This is true, albeit I honestly think that's a different matter altogether. I do understand why you are bringing it up as it's still a problem obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 14 minutes ago, I.Am.Ironman said: From an emissions stand point cruise ships are the real devil. Engines running full [gas]steam ahead 24/7 to power a casino, restaurant, club, hotel and whatever else is on board. 9 minutes ago, The Lock said: This is true, albeit I honestly think that's a different matter altogether. I do understand why you are bringing it up as it's still a problem obviously. The cruise ships that load in Vancouver are "plugged in" to shore power till they leave the dock. Vancouver Harbour/city doing what they can to reduce emissions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chon derry Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 38 minutes ago, The Lock said: Actually, these people are well educated and aren't easily swayed by propaganda. Their beds are generally much nicer than you may think. Also, this has nothing to do with "pro global warming". It's not even being mentioned. Actually, a pipeline would create less of an impact on global warming as there would be LESS CARBON EMISSIONS FROM IT. But I don't expect you to see that as you clearly aren't here to debate. actually the necessity for twinning the pipeline is to meet the need for INCREASED OIL SANDS PRODUCTION EMISSISIONS EQUIVELANT TO 2.7 MILLION CARS at which point Canada wont be able to reach its own carbon emission decrease target that they themselves set ? way to go JT interesting listen included in this link. .https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/grassroots-group-filing-legal-motion-for-neb-1.4986654 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyBoy44 Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 2 hours ago, chon derry said: actually the necessity for twinning the pipeline is to meet the need for INCREASED OIL SANDS PRODUCTION EMISSISIONS EQUIVELANT TO 2.7 MILLION CARS at which point Canada wont be able to reach its own carbon emission decrease target that they themselves set ? way to go JT interesting listen included in this link. .https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/grassroots-group-filing-legal-motion-for-neb-1.4986654 You think the oil sands are the only place in alberta where they're getting oil? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted January 28, 2019 Author Share Posted January 28, 2019 3 hours ago, The Lock said: . Actually, a pipeline would create less of an impact on global warming as there would be less carbon emissions from it. But I don't expect you to see that as you clearly aren't here to debate. Any form of oil transport that is of a lower cost will obviously lead to even more dirty Bitumen being extracted over the long term..... especially in the future when the price of Bitumen completely crashes....... The only thing that will save our planet is when the sale of Bitumen can not even cover the cost of production and transport. Hopefully most of the Bitumen can stay in the ground and never be extracted. I guess you have an agenda here though so you are not really interested in any form of debate... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 29 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said: Any form of oil transport that is of a lower cost will obviously lead to even more dirty Bitumen being extracted over the long term..... especially in the future when the price of Bitumen completely crashes....... The only thing that will save our planet is when the sale of Bitumen can not even cover the cost of production and transport. Hopefully most of the Bitumen can stay in the ground and never be extracted. I guess you have an agenda here though so you are not really interested in any form of debate... Do you at least understand why most people find it pointless to discuss this topic with you? Stick to tractor pulls and chewing tobacco. It's entertaining when you discuss those two things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted January 28, 2019 Author Share Posted January 28, 2019 27 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said: Do you at least understand why most people find it pointless to discuss this topic with you? Stick to tractor pulls and chewing tobacco. It's entertaining when you discuss those two things. CDN Bitumen is one of the worlds dirtiest oils due to poor quality....... Tractor pulls and chew - now you are making me miss Alberta....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckistani Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 18 hours ago, kingofsurrey said: A plane crash in Burns bog ( as much as a disaster as it would be ) would not pose the same economic risk to our province as a sinking Dilbit oil spill in Vancouver harbour...... Your comparison is a fail. Economic risk ? So much for your 'protect the environment' spiel. A plane crash in the burns bog is a far bigger ecological distaster than dillbit spill in the salish sea. You are slowly being exposed for the hack that you are - your position is not about environment, but competing economic interests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckistani Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 18 hours ago, Toews said: Maybe but precautions must be taken even if it is unlikely. You can crunch up the numbers however you see fit but all it takes one error in judgement or lapse in concentration and that plane ends up in Burns Bog. I am all for precautions. I am not going to support killing Canadian economy by US interests by waving a nearly non-existent 'spill risk' threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 1 hour ago, canuckistani said: A plane crash in the burns bog is a far bigger ecological distaster than dillbit spill in the salish sea. you said it, now can you back it up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckistani Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 1 minute ago, gurn said: you said it, now can you back it up? yep. easy to check the # of species in burns bog vs # of species in the salish sea. Not to mention,burns bog, being a bog, is far bigger bio-density than any marine biome outside of coral reefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted January 28, 2019 Author Share Posted January 28, 2019 1 hour ago, canuckistani said: yep. easy to check the # of species in burns bog vs # of species in the salish sea. Not to mention,burns bog, being a bog, is far bigger bio-density than any marine biome outside of coral reefs. Its all numbers to you. Are you an accountant .... you have been exposed as someone with a fascination with excel files.... Luckily, we have REAL scientists in Canada that will actually examine the risks of a dilbit spill to the salish.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckistani Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 Just now, kingofsurrey said: Its all numbers to you. Are you an accountant .... you have been exposed as someone with a fascination with excel files.... Luckily, we have REAL scientists in Canada that will actually examine the risks of a dilbit spill to the salish.... There arn't any real scientists on the side of anti-pipeline protests with any real data or analysis. Risk is all a numbers game, mate. Its not a boogie monster under the bed you summon via ouija board. Too bad someone without any semblance of science education can feel so dogmatic about it. The risk of oil tanker spill is nearly negligible - smaller than you winning the lottery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 https://www.seadocsociety.org/about-the-salish-sea " Number of different marine animals species estimated: 37 species of mammals, 172 species of birds, 253 species of fish, and more than 3,000 species of invertebrates (See Gaydos & Pearson 2011and Brown and Gaydos, 2011.) Number of species listed as threatened, endangered or are candidates for listing: 113 (See Brown and Gaydos, 2011.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burns_Bog "Burns Bog is habitat to more than 300 plant and animal species, and 175 bird species. Some of these animals are listed as endangered (i.e. red-listed) or vulnerable (i.e. blue-listed) under the BC Provincial Government Species at-risk designations. The bog is also a major migratory stopover for various bird species on the Pacific Flyway.[3] Salish sea for the win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 4 minutes ago, canuckistani said: The risk of oil tanker spill is nearly negligible - smaller than you winning the lottery. And yet people win the lottery quite often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckistani Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 2 minutes ago, gurn said: https://www.seadocsociety.org/about-the-salish-sea " Number of different marine animals species estimated: 37 species of mammals, 172 species of birds, 253 species of fish, and more than 3,000 species of invertebrates (See Gaydos & Pearson 2011and Brown and Gaydos, 2011.) Number of species listed as threatened, endangered or are candidates for listing: 113 (See Brown and Gaydos, 2011.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burns_Bog "Burns Bog is habitat to more than 300 plant and animal species, and 175 bird species. Some of these animals are listed as endangered (i.e. red-listed) or vulnerable (i.e. blue-listed) under the BC Provincial Government Species at-risk designations. The bog is also a major migratory stopover for various bird species on the Pacific Flyway.[3] Salish sea for the win. Considering that the risk of airline crash KOs the vast majority of Burns Bog and the risk of oil spill affects only a tiny portion of the sea, the # of species or # of life-forms affected are far, far smaller for Salish sea. It also has a significantly higher biodensity than Salish sea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted January 28, 2019 Author Share Posted January 28, 2019 2 minutes ago, gurn said: And yet people win the lottery quite often. Some people have won it multiple times..... I hope we don't see multiple tanker spills into the Salish Sea..... even if some randon guy in vancouver has an excel file that says it is unlikely..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckistani Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 2 minutes ago, gurn said: And yet people win the lottery quite often. Yep. The chances of YOU winning the lottery is insiginificant, which is what the comparable is for a chance of oil spill in the route. Also, Russians are shipping oil over a frozen sea for 20 years with far worse weather than the BC side of the Pacific. Still no problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckistani Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 1 minute ago, kingofsurrey said: Some people have won it multiple times..... I hope we don't see multiple tanker spills into the Salish Sea..... even if some randon guy in vancouver has an excel file that says it is unlikely..... Yes because it will impact your economic activities in the Salish sea, as you admitted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 8 minutes ago, canuckistani said: Considering that the risk of airline crash KOs the vast majority of Burns Bog and the risk of oil spill affects only a tiny portion of the sea, the # of species or # of life-forms affected are far, far smaller for Salish sea. It also has a significantly higher biodensity than Salish sea. Moving the goal posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.