BPA Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 I wonder about Nuclear power. Don't really know all the pros and cons. I would take a look at countries that have nuclear power and their carbon footprint to see if it's viable. But I don't want to trade one problem for another. Besides, isn't Canada supposed to be nuclear free? As for pipelines, as long as risks are managed properly, I'm fine with it. As it's better than rail / trucks (from what I read). As far as China and India goes, we can't exactly dictate how other countries are run. But if Canada becomes the gold standard, then perhaps that is something those countries can aspire to. Not now...but generations from now when the corruption is rooted out from Government...lol. I know I'm dreaming. But one can hope. It's a complex problem that hopefully smarter minds than mine will figure out the solution. In the meantime, I'll do my small part. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
189lb enforcers? Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 29 minutes ago, Duodenum said: Most of this is just deflection. What effect does this have overall? So small it wouldn't register. There's nothing hypocritical of wearing Nikes and wanting to switch to renewable energy. Deforestation (~11%), Transportation (~14%) and Energy (~24%) are easier to hit and comprise of a much larger footprint than guitar strings and nikes lol. And with the right technologies, it won't have much, if any effect on our standard of living. Bringing up stupid things like nikes and guitar strings is intellectually lazy and doesn't progress the discussion at all. It is lazy, just like your few stats. Did you expect me or any other poster to post a book and would that actually change any minds here, really? No. You know that, so spare me. We’re all lazy because we don’t have time, or shouldn’t, to lay down a thesis paper at every topic point to base our opinions on. Give me a break. Would it change your mind if I wrote an essay, or better yet, either plagiarized some opinion as my own , the norm here, or that I posted a few rival stats to yours, as we all know the whoring of stats is an actual job for some people. Its not deflection. Deflection is all around us and this subject, though dressed-up otherwise, is a flagship of societal deception. You tell me why it moved from Global warming to climate change. You tell me how we are worse off than ever before and how that happened if it’s not completely consumers in the West driving a large part of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
189lb enforcers? Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 24 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: See that’s the issue a lot of people have. They are stuck and think the things you are advocating will save the world, but really most of that stuff is just greenwash. CO2 emissions are a global issue and when you look at who the largest emitters are, you should quickly realize that the 1.6% Canada owns is a drop in the bucket to countries like China and India. Even if Canada shut down every single source of emission, global emissions still grow at an accelerated rate and we are no closer as solving climate change. And that is talking about the extreme of stopping everything and having everyone go off grid. That just not realistic, so people advocate transitioning to green, but I question if people who are advocating for this have even considered and done the research to see if that is a realistic option. Most evidence suggest it’s not even remotely realistic. Take Michael Shellenberger for example, he is a Time Magazine "Hero of the Environment," Green Book Award winner, and the founder and president of Environmental Progress. has stated “you can't power a modern economy on solar and wind... All they do is make the electricity system chaotic and provide greenwash for fossil fuels”. Bill gates has also made similar statements around renewable energy. “I am optimistic,” that the international community can solve climate change. But in the same breath he added, “Part of the problem is there’s not a broad awareness of how challenging it’s going to be to bring down greenhouse gas emissions.” A lot of people think renewable energy,” he said. “Wind and solar has gotten a lot cheaper. Isn’t that it? When electricity is only a quarter of the problem. In fact, we’ve got to solve the entire 100 percent.” People are deceiving themselves into believing what and how to solve climate change. There is an obtainable solution and you never hear a peep about it. In terms of finding a carbon neutral energy replacement the answer is easily Nuclear. In terms to reducing CO2 emissions part of the answer is doing what you mentioned above but that’s really small scale, you should also include pushing for more carbon capture programs, supporting more GMO’s, and most of all supporting pipelines. These are all methods of making the current emissions vastly more effective while supporting a demand that is not going away. I’m not saying give up and not care about how you live your life, but I am saying we need shift the focus onto something that will actual make change. People call on politicians to implement all these small scale changes that come at a great economic cost.. which, as I said before gets us no closer to solving the issue. Anyways I’m also open for a healthy debate on this topic Well put. Solutions aren’t a patchwork of temporary fixes and shuffling problems around. The issues are so very complex. What these kids may have done for the world is to force the rest of us to correct some of their misinformation or misguided, though well-meaning, efforts. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if, in an attempt to discredit the value of the protest, we actually turned the corner and innovated something of a consensus, technology or whatever, that some good comes from this other than some shrieking and drama class auditioning in front of a microphone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duodenum Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 1 minute ago, 189lb enforcers? said: It is lazy, just like your few stats. Did you expect me or any other poster to post a book and would that actually change any minds here, really? No. You know that, so spare me. We’re all lazy because we don’t have time, or shouldn’t, to lay down a thesis paper at every topic point to base our opinions on. Give me a break. Would it change your mind if I wrote an essay, or better yet, either plagiarized some opinion as my own , the norm here, or that I posted a few rival stats to yours, as we all know the whoring of stats is an actual job for some people. Its not deflection. Deflection is all around us and this subject, though dressed-up otherwise, is a flagship of societal deception. You tell me why it moved from Global warming to climate change. You tell me how we are worse off than ever before and how that happened if it’s not completely consumers in the West driving a large part of it. Climate change was used before Global warming fyi, Global warming was the coin term for Al Gore so that's why that stuck in the media first, then went back to Climate change. Regardless, they have different meanings, one does not replace the other. Global warming is the trend we've seen of increasing average global temperatures. Climate change is how the climate is changing due to this increase in temperature. Ie: Climate change is the resulting change in our climate due to the temperature increase from above. Global warming isn't at debate, it's happening and no matter who does the experiments, the data is very clear on that. The debate is whether humans are contributing to it (with the majority saying that humans are having an impact). Plagiarising the experts is important as we aren't the experts here. I haven't personally collected any data, nor do I have a PhD in environmental science so I have to trust our global agencies filled with scientists in the field to provide the information for me. No, it's not lazy just like my few stats. Those stats matter. The reason we have a push for renewable energy sources and not renewable Nikes is because of those stats. It makes more sense to go after the big fish than argue over the little ones. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckster19 Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Warhippy said: Love those arguments. They're not changing so I don't have to. Let's hypothetically claim that "they" are living in an open sewer" and you are choosing to also live in an open sewer because they refuse to change. Love those arguments. I don't have to change because they won't change is the equivalent of I'm waiting for them to jump off the bridge so I can to. Why be a leader when you can be a follower I want the world to change, and I'm on board.... why in your world do I have to like how people are promoting it? I'm a terrible 30+ white man everything is my fault and I should feel guilty... yeah f--- that s---. Edited September 30, 2019 by canuckster19 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
189lb enforcers? Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 (edited) 31 minutes ago, Warhippy said: Love those arguments. They're not changing so I don't have to. Let's hypothetically claim that "they" are living in an open sewer" and you are choosing to also live in an open sewer because they refuse to change. Love those arguments. I don't have to change because they won't change is the equivalent of I'm waiting for them to jump off the bridge so I can to. Why be a leader when you can be a follower But... the argument is not about not doing something or the other, it’s about what/where/how the actual pollution is, elsewhere, meanwhile and what can be done about it, while consuming those products. When your global effort equates to a drop in the bucket, despite all those Western resources and good intentions, there must be a better place to start, like that poster was possibly suggesting. One argument is not any any better than the other, but I’d like to think we could discuss the value of each potential outcome without being misaligned in our scope at all. Edited September 30, 2019 by 189lb enforcers? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
189lb enforcers? Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Duodenum said: Climate change was used before Global warming fyi, Global warming was the coin term for Al Gore so that's why that stuck in the media first, then went back to Climate change. Regardless, they have different meanings, one does not replace the other. Global warming is the trend we've seen of increasing average global temperatures. Climate change is how the climate is changing due to this increase in temperature. Ie: Climate change is the resulting change in our climate due to the temperature increase from above. Global warming isn't at debate, it's happening and no matter who does the experiments, the data is very clear on that. The debate is whether humans are contributing to it (with the majority saying that humans are having an impact). Plagiarising the experts is important as we aren't the experts here. I haven't personally collected any data, nor do I have a PhD in environmental science so I have to trust our global agencies filled with scientists in the field to provide the information for me. No, it's not lazy just like my few stats. Those stats matter. The reason we have a push for renewable energy sources and not renewable Nikes is because of those stats. It makes more sense to go after the big fish than argue over the little ones. Hmm, I’m not sure why we’d be in any form of opposition then, actually. Global warming isn't a debate, agreed, nor has it ever been man made, and we can’t say that it is now, because like you said, those experts disagree. Really though, I have long questioned why only one side of the debate was granted MSM privilege and funding, while the other side was thrown down into the realm of denier, with all of its conspiracy theorist connotations. I have no issue with anything you said, though either of us could likely produce some bizarre inverse of your graphic there with relative ease and it will have the credentials behind it that allow us to do so, tit for tat all day. That, is an awfully tiring and pointless rally we could play on here like time vampires. Edited September 30, 2019 by 189lb enforcers? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kragar Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 26 minutes ago, BPA said: Lol. Kids demanding. While it may rub some people the wrong way, I view it as trying to raise awareness and prompt Government and big business to take some action...any action. Much like the gun debate in the US. Now you are seeing major stores banning firearms sales in their stores. It's a step in the right direction. Why do you laugh? "The demands of Fridays for Future protesters are: the relinquishment of fossil energy sources and decrease of greenhouse gas emissions to zero" I can't quote properly on my phone for some reason, but the above came from the first link. https://globalnews.ca/news/5957133/climaterally/ https://www.sciencenews.org/article/students-worldwide-are-striking-demand-action-climate-change https://statehornet.com/2019/09/students-gather-to-demand-action-against-climate-change/ https://www.abqjournal.com/1368912/abq-students-walk-out-for-climate-change.html They are demanding the government make changes. Looks pretty clear to me. Do they understand what impact the fulfillment of their request will have, both on the environment as well as other factors? I sincerely doubt it. They just expect government to do something along the lines of what they are asking for in the hope that climate will... what? Stop changing? Stop being drastic? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 37 minutes ago, Warhippy said: Love those arguments. They're not changing so I don't have to. Let's hypothetically claim that "they" are living in an open sewer" and you are choosing to also live in an open sewer because they refuse to change. Love those arguments. I don't have to change because they won't change is the equivalent of I'm waiting for them to jump off the bridge so I can to. Why be a leader when you can be a follower No the validity of the argument is if my effort gives me economic grief while also bringing next to zero net benefit it is worth it? No one is saying don’t attempt to live cleaner, what people are saying is, are you considering the costs for the level of change people are calling for. How is much of your own income do you donate into climate change research? Less than 50%? 75%? Why not 100%, isn’t the world at stake? We know the answer is very low, because you, like most sane people, take care of your own household first. You are not going to put your own household in jeopardy to survive, all for the zero impact your donation would contribute. Should people go to your home and protest that you aren’t doing enough? 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
189lb enforcers? Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 7 minutes ago, Kragar said: Why do you laugh? "The demands of Fridays for Future protesters are: the relinquishment of fossil energy sources and decrease of greenhouse gas emissions to zero" I can't quote properly on my phone for some reason, but the above came from the first link. https://globalnews.ca/news/5957133/climaterally/ https://www.sciencenews.org/article/students-worldwide-are-striking-demand-action-climate-change https://statehornet.com/2019/09/students-gather-to-demand-action-against-climate-change/ https://www.abqjournal.com/1368912/abq-students-walk-out-for-climate-change.html They are demanding the government make changes. Looks pretty clear to me. Do they understand what impact the fulfillment of their request will have, both on the environment as well as other factors? I sincerely doubt it. They just expect government to do something along the lines of what they are asking for in the hope that climate will... what? Stop changing? Stop being drastic? Sign of the times... Government in place of personal responsibility and even liberty. 1984 is here. I miss the old version of the hippies, at least they opposed the man, not invoked him to take care of their every behaviour, even thought. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 30 minutes ago, canuckster19 said: I want the world to change, and I'm on board.... why in your world do I have to like how people are promoting it? I'm a terrible 30+ white man everything is my fault and I should feel guilty... yeah f--- that s---. I don';t care if you're on board or not. Your statement is they're not changing so why should we and that's...well you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 29 minutes ago, 189lb enforcers? said: But... the argument is not about not doing something or the other, it’s about what/where/how the actual pollution is, elsewhere, meanwhile and what can be done about it, while consuming those products. When your global effort equates to a drop in the bucket, despite all those Western resources and good intentions, there must be a better place to start, like that poster was possibly suggesting. One argument is not any any better than the other, but I’d like to think we could discuss the value of each potential outcome without being misaligned in our scope at all. No sir, his statement was very clearly they won't change why should we. canada is only 1% blah blah blah why should we change when we're not the problem. The fallacy with that argument is that somehow 1 drop in the bucket is not important. If you're looking for a better place to start, there is no better place than home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kragar Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 44 minutes ago, BPA said: I wonder about Nuclear power. Don't really know all the pros and cons. I would take a look at countries that have nuclear power and their carbon footprint to see if it's viable. But I don't want to trade one problem for another. Besides, isn't Canada supposed to be nuclear free? As for pipelines, as long as risks are managed properly, I'm fine with it. As it's better than rail / trucks (from what I read). As far as China and India goes, we can't exactly dictate how other countries are run. But if Canada becomes the gold standard, then perhaps that is something those countries can aspire to. Not now...but generations from now when the corruption is rooted out from Government...lol. I know I'm dreaming. But one can hope. It's a complex problem that hopefully smarter minds than mine will figure out the solution. In the meantime, I'll do my small part. This is exactly it. It is great that we do our small parts. I've had solar power for close to a decade, and I get to enjoy telecommuting most days. I've replaced a lot of lawn with trees and plants that use less water and are better overall (plus get some good food once in a while), and will replace more when I can. We all should do things we can afford to make things better overall. The concern about the gold standard is the cost. If it is too expensive for too little result, bigger fish won't implement it. Trying to take big bites out of the problem, like these kids request, is that other costs are ignored. experimenting often by making small changes, and expanding on successful ones and discarding the failed ones is the way to go. I don't see that coming from these kids or the more vocal politicians. They want drastic change in a short period of time. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master 112 Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 21 minutes ago, 189lb enforcers? said: Sign of the times... Government in place of personal responsibility and even liberty. 1984 is here. I miss the old version of the hippies, at least they opposed the man, not invoked him to take care of their every behaviour, even thought. i'm not sure 1984 is particularly relevant to the climate change movement but am curious to hear your elaboration 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
189lb enforcers? Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 (edited) 33 minutes ago, Warhippy said: No sir, his statement was very clearly they won't change why should we. canada is only 1% blah blah blah why should we change when we're not the problem. The fallacy with that argument is that somehow 1 drop in the bucket is not important. If you're looking for a better place to start, there is no better place than home. Tell that to a sailor taking on water at sea. Tell him to just plug that small hole he’s next to first, not those big holes over there. On the surface, who could disagree with such a statement? Well played. But that’s the entire point of Forsberg et al. On the surface, the protesters have not likely looked at the issue or what fixing it means. The fallacy here, IMO, is the aim and mark of the grandiose gesture of a Canadian consumer-kid taking on actual global warming or climate change while being completely disconnected from actual mega-contributors. I envision a boy with his finger in the dyke, holding back the ocean, while excavators are working around the clock to dig trenches in the dyke while that boy swells with a feeling of achievement and well-doingness. You can say your part all you like as its the socially acceptable thing to say, the status quo, no doubt. Others are suggesting both actions, personal responsibility and Canadian policy and pressuring India/China, whomever, to change their horrific manufacturing costs, can happen at the same time, yet that’s not systemized, nor happening. Clean up your own house first? What if the one beside you is on fire? Poor analogy unless of course you’ve ever tried to protect your house from that instead of working on the fire at hand. Edited September 30, 2019 by 189lb enforcers? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bishopshodan Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, 189lb enforcers? said: Global warming isn't at debate, it's happening and no matter who does the experiments, the data is very clear on that. The debate is whether humans are contributing to it (with the majority saying that humans are having an impact). Thank you. I think some in this thread are behind the times when it comes to the awareness of today's youth. Some must have just become aware of what you posted "Climate change has always been happening, it's the earth's cycle! " ...yeah, we get that. Now, how much effect do us dirty modern humans have on speeding it up? are we a tipping point? if we could hold it off for a couple hundred years...slow it down...how much benefit would that be for the future generations? Could they escape to Mars or Lunar bases? could they develop tech to deal with the earths drastic changes? Edited September 30, 2019 by bishopshodan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
189lb enforcers? Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 1 minute ago, 112 said: i'm not sure 1984 is particularly relevant to the climate change movement but am curious to hear your elaboration No, no, it’s the kids’ demanding Government, begging even, look after them so they can continue to enjoy the distracting creature comforts they fight with to pass their days with while expecting a green climate. The shift into the dependence on big brother by the population to police, systemized and thus control behaviour and consumption is the 1984-esque relevance here. The kids aren’t calling for change to their behaviour, they’re calling for a globalist effort to, control others’. They want big brother. It’s no small coincidence that this Gretta puppet has the platform she has. Lol does anyone think the mega corps owned by MSM actually want to stop production? Down the rabbit hole we go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bishopshodan Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 University of Alberta vice-president resigns over 'beefier barley' billboards https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/university-of-alberta-vice-president-resigns-billboards-1.5302308 The University of Alberta's vice-president of university relations has resigned over the school's "beefier barley" billboards, which were slammed as promoting climate change. Billboards promoting the 'positive' effects of Climate change? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master 112 Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 1 minute ago, 189lb enforcers? said: No, no, it’s the kids’ demanding Government, begging even, look after them so they can continue to enjoy the distracting creature comforts they fight with to pass their days with while expecting a green climate. The shift into the dependence on big brother by the population to police, systemized and thus control behaviour and consumption is the 1984-esque relevance here. The kids aren’t calling for change to their behaviour, they’re calling for a globalist effort to, control others’. They want big brother. It’s no small coincidence that this Gretta puppet has the platform she has. Lol does anyone think the mega corps owned by MSM actually want to stop production? Down the rabbit hole we go. I am not particularly well versed with climate change or its socio-political factors, but is it not something that demands government intervention in the first place? Does it not make sense to be appealing to governments and politicians? The change that needs to happen most of all is at the level of policy; while the individual can do a little bit, as long as big factories are pumping fumes into the air across the general area of the country, she can't do much. Just that someone thinks there should be a tuning of government in reference to its handling of climate change does not mean they are anarchists who disagree with the State entirely. As far as I can tell, it makes absolute sense to talk of climate change within the realm of politics and with an expectation that policy be amended. I agree that probably the students going out and protesting do not understand all of the complications involved in 'climate change' and the application of government policy towards its containment. But they are absolutely right that it is something the global establishments need to pay attention to and handle in some way imo. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
189lb enforcers? Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 10 minutes ago, bishopshodan said: Thank you. I think some in this thread are behind the times when it comes to the awareness of today's youth. Some must have just become ware of what you posted "Climate change has always been happening, it's the earth's cycle! " ...yeah, we get that. Now, how much effect do us dirty modern humans have on speeding it up? are we a tipping point? if we could hold it off for a couple hundred years...slow it down...how much benefit would that be for the future generations? Could they escape to Mars or Lunar bases? could they develop tech to deal with the earths drastic changes? There we are! These are the conversations I enjoy because they acknowledge both sides simultaneously and weigh options and value instead of ploys of utter sophistry and other interesting, scandalous endgames we’ve witnessed our elite lives, all served up by your harmless MSM engineers. Just a reminder to back this point... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now