Global warming

[nelsonob1]

Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck

I'm curious why the discussion always seems to be about 'battling climate change'? Is it really possible to change the climate or altar the incredibly complex climate systems that affect the earth (particularly solar cycles)? I see no evidence to support that, historically or in the current context.

Wouldn't a more important discussion be about adapting to climate change?

You should Google impact of CO2 on climate, and you will find a wealth of data and analysis on how we have impacted climate change. There are also lots of information on how we can all make changes in our lives to slow down and modify the extreme outcomes. But I agree, we can also talk about adaptation - many communities are creating resiliency plans. I think the issue for many is that they won't do anything that inconveniences them until the price of that personal inconvenience caused by climate change motivates that change. It's the same reason why millions of people die each month for lack of access to basic things like health care, food, safe water, etc. We allow it to happen because it doesn't cause us any direct harm.

At the end of the day, some people will do more or less and others absolutely nothing. Thats always the way of things. But it's ironic that an outdoorsmen community takes time out to belittle those who are at least trying to do something. It's like chastising someone who donates to the Red Cross on the basis that your donation isn't going to count for anything in the long run.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by nelsonob1

You should Google impact of CO2 on climate, and you will find a wealth of data and analysis on how we have impacted climate change. There are also lots of information on how we can all make changes in our lives to slow down and modify the extreme outcomes. But I agree, we can also talk about adaptation - many communities are creating resiliency plans. I think the issue for many is that they won't do anything that inconveniences them until the price of that personal inconvenience caused by climate change motivates that change. It's the same reason why millions of people die each month for lack of access to basic things like health care, food, safe water, etc. We allow it to happen because it doesn't cause us any direct harm.

At the end of the day, some people will do more or less and others absolutely nothing. Thats always the way of things. But it's ironic that an outdoorsmen community takes time out to belittle those who are at least trying to do something. It's like chastising someone who donates to the Red Cross on the basis that your donation isn't going to count for anything in the long run.

People give to the Red Cross, because they choose to, of their own free will, and when they do, they only commit their own money. That isn't what is happening here, when carbon taxes are imposed on everyone, and legislation is imposed on everyone, forcing them to involuntarily support a political agenda. I have zero complaints when someone chooses to commit their own resources to a cause, but I take exception, when they try to force everyone else to support their agenda.

[bdub]

Opec's World Oil Outlook annual report came out yesterday. Some pretty concerning opening statements on where we are supply wise vs demand wise. Canada should be taking a much larger role in providing the energy demand going forward. We are the cleanest and most ethically sourced energy in the World imo. It is going to come from somewhere, a lot of it from places that are not going to develop it responsibly in regards to the environment.

From the opening statement of the report.

"To place expected future energy demand in some context, the WOO sees the need to annually add on average 2.7 million barrels of oil equivalent a day in the period to 2045. This requires huge investments. Moreover, for the oil industry alone we also need to add 5 million barrels of oil a day (mb/d) every year to just maintain current production at around 100 mb/d, given an average annual industry decline rate of around 5%. The overall investment number for the oil sector is $12.1 trillion out to 2045. However, chronic underinvestment into the global oil industry in recent years, due to industry downturns, the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as policies centered on ending financing in fossil fuel projects, is a major cause of concern.

OPEC Member Countries remain committed to investments to ensure oil supply meets demand and to further decarbonize the industry. They are also making significant investments in other energies, such as renewables, nuclear, gas and hydrogen. We believe that an all-options, all-solutions and all-technologies must be utilized."

https://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/publications/340.htm

[Hunter Trav]

Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck

Is it really possible to change the climate or altar the incredibly complex climate systems that affect the earth...

Chemtrails...just sayin...lol

[cody j]

Financially punishing people for heating their homes in the winter in a northern climate is just a virtue signaling cash grab. Even if a person truly believed that a carbon tax was absolutely necessary and was going to change the weather, why would you be implementing it now? Right after the pandemic with a crap economy, rising interest rates and out of control inflation?

[elkhunter11]

The biggest problem with the global warming campaign, is that the climate warriors demand that we all must support their agenda, because it's for the greater good. They demand legislation to force everyone to comply with their agenda. Yet the same political party that is driving this agenda , supports reducing sentences for drug dealers, because they are just trying to put food on the table. They support reducing sentences for some criminals because of their race, or ancestry. So why is the greater good excuse acceptable for climate agendas, while individual rights are more important than protecting the public from criminals? The fact is, it isn't about the greater good, any more than banning firearms is for the greater good, it all comes down to politics, and who is gaining power, or is making money, by promoting the agenda.
Look at how often our PM and his cabinet are flying around the world in jets that emit far more than our vehicles, but somehow that isn't important, because they are the privileged few, and the agenda only applies to us peasants.
Then we have the anti pipeline protesters, how do they get to the protests? They fly or drive in vehicles that burn the products that they are protesting. They use plastics and other materials derived from oil, and that is okay, but having the oil shipped by pipeline is somehow wrong. They don't even protest the supertankers that bring oil from overseas, or the transport ships that bring products from overseas, even though both burn massive amounts of fuel. These people promote electric vehicles, yet they don't protest the mining of lithium, to make the batteries, and that mining is not done in ways that are environmentally friendly. It all comes down to supporting agendas, either personal or political, and who is gaining power or money, from supporting those agendas.

[silver]

I think I saw a news item that said some countries want to be paid money by first world countries because of global warming. Some of the countries that want to be paid are some of the worst carbon polluters on the planet.

[Phil McCracken]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

The biggest problem with the global warming campaign, is that the climate warriors demand that we all must support their agenda, because it's for the greater good. They demand legislation to force everyone to comply with their agenda. Yet the same political party that is driving this agenda , supports reducing sentences for drug dealers, because they are just trying to put food on the table. They support reducing sentences for some criminals because of their race, or ancestry. So why is the greater good excuse acceptable for climate agendas, while individual rights are more important than protecting the public from criminals? The fact is, it isn't about the greater good, any more than banning firearms is for the greater good, it all comes down to politics, and who is gaining power, or is making money, by promoting the agenda.
Look at how often our PM and his cabinet are flying around the world in jets that emit far more than our vehicles, but somehow that isn't important, because they are the privileged few, and the agenda only applies to us peasants.
Then we have the anti pipeline protesters, how do they get to the protests? They fly or drive in vehicles that burn the products that they are protesting. They use plastics and other materials derived from oil, and that is okay, but having the oil shipped by pipeline is somehow wrong. They don't even protest the supertankers that bring oil from overseas, or the transport ships that bring products from overseas, even though both burn massive amounts of fuel. These people promote electric vehicles, yet they don't protest the mining of lithium, to make the batteries, and that mining is not done in ways that are environmentally friendly. It all comes down to supporting agendas, either personal or political, and who is gaining power or money, from supporting those agendas.

Elk11...I agree with you on this one!...Now that is a change!...Good game...

[fordtruckin]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

The biggest problem with the global warming campaign, is that the climate warriors demand that we all must support their agenda, because it's for the greater good. They demand legislation to force everyone to comply with their agenda. Yet the same political party that is driving this agenda , supports reducing sentences for drug dealers, because they are just trying to put food on the table. They support reducing sentences for some criminals because of their race, or ancestry. So why is the greater good excuse acceptable for climate agendas, while individual rights are more important than protecting the public from criminals? The fact is, it isn't about the greater good, any more than banning firearms is for the greater good, it all comes down to politics, and who is gaining power, or is making money, by promoting the agenda.
Look at how often our PM and his cabinet are flying around the world in jets that emit far more than our vehicles, but somehow that isn't important, because they are the privileged few, and the agenda only applies to us peasants.
Then we have the anti pipeline protesters, how do they get to the protests? They fly or drive in vehicles that burn the products that they are protesting. They use plastics and other materials derived from oil, and that is okay, but having the oil shipped by pipeline is somehow wrong. They don't even protest the supertankers that bring oil from overseas, or the transport ships that bring products from overseas, even though both burn massive amounts of fuel. These people promote electric vehicles, yet they don't protest the mining of lithium, to make the batteries, and that mining is not done in ways that are environmentally friendly. It all comes down to supporting agendas, either personal or political, and who is gaining power or money, from supporting those agendas.

X2

[Walleyedude]

Originally Posted by nelsonob1

I think the issue for many is that they won't do anything that inconveniences them until the price of that personal inconvenience caused by climate change motivates that change.

I think the exact opposite of this is true.

People are all for "fighting climate change", until that fight starts personally costing them real money. Then they start to question whether those costs are effective, reasonable, or logical, and whether those costs in the end, will be less than the ACTUAL cost of climate change. Most will realize rather quickly that if you do the math, it doesn't add up.

ACTUAL cost is the key, we've been hearing nonsense doomsday scenarios for 20+ years, according to Al Gore, Florida should be underwater, the Arctic should be farmland, and the human race in dire risk of extinction by now. The FACTS are, there are fewer natural disasters, and BY FAR fewer human casualities due to "climate" than ever before in our history.

IMHO, it is only the skyrocketing price of the basics of life - food, shelter, and transportation - that will cause the average citizen to wake up to what's going on and push back against the climate change agenda. It has to hit people in directly in the pocket book.

[traderal]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

The biggest problem with the global warming campaign, is that the climate warriors demand that we all must support their agenda, because it's for the greater good. They demand legislation to force everyone to comply with their agenda. Yet the same political party that is driving this agenda , supports reducing sentences for drug dealers, because they are just trying to put food on the table. They support reducing sentences for some criminals because of their race, or ancestry. So why is the greater good excuse acceptable for climate agendas, while individual rights are more important than protecting the public from criminals? The fact is, it isn't about the greater good, any more than banning firearms is for the greater good, it all comes down to politics, and who is gaining power, or is making money, by promoting the agenda.
Look at how often our PM and his cabinet are flying around the world in jets that emit far more than our vehicles, but somehow that isn't important, because they are the privileged few, and the agenda only applies to us peasants.
Then we have the anti pipeline protesters, how do they get to the protests? They fly or drive in vehicles that burn the products that they are protesting. They use plastics and other materials derived from oil, and that is okay, but having the oil shipped by pipeline is somehow wrong. They don't even protest the supertankers that bring oil from overseas, or the transport ships that bring products from overseas, even though both burn massive amounts of fuel. These people promote electric vehicles, yet they don't protest the mining of lithium, to make the batteries, and that mining is not done in ways that are environmentally friendly. It all comes down to supporting agendas, either personal or political, and who is gaining power or money, from supporting those agendas.

Well said. Also there is no discussion allowed on climate change as scientists who disagree or have other valid data are muzzled and cut out of funding for research. If there was nothing to hide then debate would be welcomed. The elite that champion climate change agenda are still buying seaside property, 700 million dollar yachts, etc.

[EZM]

Originally Posted by nelsonob1

You should Google impact of CO2 on climate, and you will find a wealth of data and analysis on how we have impacted climate change. There are also lots of information on how we can all make changes in our lives to slow down and modify the extreme outcomes. But I agree, we can also talk about adaptation - many communities are creating resiliency plans. I think the issue for many is that they won't do anything that inconveniences them until the price of that personal inconvenience caused by climate change motivates that change. It's the same reason why millions of people die each month for lack of access to basic things like health care, food, safe water, etc. We allow it to happen because it doesn't cause us any direct harm.

At the end of the day, some people will do more or less and others absolutely nothing. Thats always the way of things. But it's ironic that an outdoorsmen community takes time out to belittle those who are at least trying to do something. It's like chastising someone who donates to the Red Cross on the basis that your donation isn't going to count for anything in the long run.

You are talking to an audience of many who CHOOSE to deny the impact man has had to climate change despite the overwhelming global consensus.

There are other here, ironically, who take it a step further and deny that Climate Change is, in fact, occurring.

Almost every single country and government administration, climate scientists, etc.. etc.. on the planet knows, understands and accepts this except for BIG OIL, BIG COAL (and Donald Trump) - because they have nothing to loose right? lol

Yet the people/groups who say anything about climate change are the corrupt ones, the one benefitting right????

Many on here CHOOSE to consume what the WANT to consume.

Save your breath.

As far as I'm concerned, it's clear man's activities have had an impact on climate change.

Climate change is real.

We need to work towards a measured approach that protects our economy yet allows us to move toward lower carbon pollution.

Why can't we just start there? (a rhetorical question)

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by EZM

You are talking to an audience of many who CHOOSE to deny the impact man has had to climate change despite the overwhelming global consensus.

There are other here, ironically, who take it a step further and deny that Climate Change is, in fact, occurring.

Almost every single country and government administration, climate scientists, etc.. etc.. on the planet knows, understands and accepts this except for BIG OIL, BIG COAL (and Donald Trump) - because they have nothing to loose right? lol

Yet the people/groups who say anything about climate change are the corrupt ones, the one benefitting right????

Many on here CHOOSE to consume what the WANT to consume.

Save your breath.

As far as I'm concerned, it's clear man's activities have had an impact on climate change.

Climate change is real.

We need to work towards a measured approach that protects our economy yet allows us to move toward lower carbon pollution.

Why can't we just start there? (a rhetorical question)

Really shouting that opinion from atop a soap box aren't we? lol
And I'm sure you've come to realize how much I value your opinion

edit. I feel I should have bolded a line or 2

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by EZM

You are talking to an audience of many who CHOOSE to deny the impact man has had to climate change despite the overwhelming global consensus.

There are other here, ironically, who take it a step further and deny that Climate Change is, in fact, occurring.

Almost every single country and government administration, climate scientists, etc.. etc.. on the planet knows, understands and accepts this except for BIG OIL, BIG COAL (and Donald Trump) - because they have nothing to loose right? lol

Yet the people/groups who say anything about climate change are the corrupt ones, the one benefitting right????

Many on here CHOOSE to consume what the WANT to consume.

Save your breath.

As far as I'm concerned, it's clear man's activities have had an impact on climate change.

Climate change is real.

We need to work towards a measured approach that protects our economy yet allows us to move toward lower carbon pollution.

Why can't we just start there? (a rhetorical question)

And then there are those people here that actually believe that a carbon tax, that goes to general revenue , will actually do anything to reduce emissions. There are people that also seem to be okay with allowing lithium mining, in it's present form to continue, although it is done with very little concern for the environment, in it's present form. And there are the people that are all in favor of electric vehicles, even though we don't have the electrical grid capacity, or the electrical production capability to charge the vehicles, if we do a complete change over to electric vehicles. Those people pretend that the grid capacity ,and the electrical production capacity will miraculously be ready for the changeover, even there is no feasible plan in place to accomplish this, or to find the money to pay for this. As to a measured approach, that isn't possible , because our government doesn't want a measured approach. They want a political approach that virtue signals, even though they know that the virtual signaling will accomplish nothing. To them, and many climate change warriors, the oil and gas industry is the enemy, yet they all comtinue to fly around the world not only for political reasons, but to enjoy vacations. They continue to be guests on yachts that burn huge amounts of fuel, and they have multiple homes around the world that all create emissions, but that is okay for them. Cement plants in Quebec are not made to follow the same emissions standards as the oil and gas industry in Alberta, which makes no sense at all, to anyone , but our government, and the people in Quebec, who don't want pipelines.
So yes, there are all kinds of people on both sides of the issue, and the odd thing is, some even fly to locations to protest oil and gas production or pipelines, on aircraft that burn tons of petroleum products. Other people choose to go on cruises, on large ships that burn tons of fuel. And almost everyone chooses to use synthetic materials made from petroleum products. I have to laugh when some fool in a plastic kayak wearing synthetic clothes is protesting against climate change.
So yes, we have all kinds of people on both sides of the issue, and it's hard to take someone seriously, when they use the very products that they are campaigning against.
Now if someone that never flies on vacations, never takes unnecessary road trips , and avoids all oil and gas use, and all oil and gas byproducts whenever humanly possible, campains against climate change, I might take them much more seriously.

[HyperMOA]

Originally Posted by EZM

The official answer is YES .....if you measure per MW/KJ/BTU.

China's coal plants are, as hard as it is to believe, very clean, with some of the most cutting edge technology, compared to our domestic coal plants here in North America. (I thought I'd never use China and cutting edge technology in the same sentence).

Problem is, China uses (burns) something like HALF (50%) of the entire worlds coal. So they are making WAY MORE emissions than we are. So in that regard, NO.

So, take it for what it is.

https://www.powermag.com/who-has-the...%20July%202009.

Your article lists only plants larger than 300MW. Estevan sask has (likely had) the worlds cleanest coal plant in the world but it was only 250-275 MW. Mind you it was built in the early 90s so I would hope it’s been beaten in the last 30 years. I would bet it’s still up there as it has had refits and cleaner technology added over the decades too. I’m not sure if it went CCS too, but Boundary did for sure.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by HyperMOA

Your article lists only plants larger than 300MW. Estevan sask has (likely had) the worlds cleanest coal plant in the world but it was only 250-275 MW. Mind you it was built in the early 90s so I would hope it’s been beaten in the last 30 years. I would bet it’s still up there as it has had refits and cleaner technology added over the decades too. I’m not sure if it went CCS too, but Boundary did for sure.

His article also didn't compare Canadian plants. From that link

A comparison of coal power plant fleets from China, the European Union (EU), Japan, and the U.S. by the International Energy Agency’s (IEA’s) Clean Coal Centre yields surprising insights into efforts these regions are making to deploy high-efficiency, low-emission (HELE) plants.

Canada isn't even mentioned.

But here is an article on the first full scale clean coal plant, and it is in Canada.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/e...pens-in-canada

[sns2]

There’s been climate change since the world began. Floods, ice ages, tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunamis and the list goes on.

Follow the money.

Always follow the money.

[silver]

If you really want to stop climate change and green house gasses, why don't you change the biggest polluter in the world, China.

They produce 30% of the worlds greenhouse gasses and yet none of the climate change treaties include China.

Canada produces about 1.6% of the worlds gasses so it really doesn't matter what we do here. We could cut our gasses to zero and China would make that up by the end of the year.

[sns2]

Originally Posted by silver

If you really want to stop climate change and green house gasses, why don't you change the biggest polluter in the world, China.

They produce 30% of the worlds greenhouse gasses and yet none of the climate change treaties include China.

Canada produces about 1.6% of the worlds gasses so it really doesn't matter what we do here. We could cut our gasses to zero and China would make that up by the end of the year.

And, therein lies the rub.

[Pioneer2]

Is just another political hoax pushed by Chicken Little.

[Smoky buck]

Just a thought

So if we reduce the % of carbon produced by each individual in this world yet our population continues to increase will we ever get ahead enough to combat the theory of man made climate change?

Hmm so many things to ponder when it comes to scientific theories and contributing factors that can play a roll

And some need to understand a there is a big difference between scientific theories based on facts vs vs proven events. Where the trouble lies is theories need to run there course to be proven or study with a control to compare

Remember people there has been many many theories based on fact brought forth by highly educated people in history some with lots of support even. Some prove to be right others not so much

But continue on lol

[heretohunt]

OK, so let’s assume that this whole climate change deal is completely on the up and up. What has been accomplished so far? From what I can tell taxes have been raised to crippling levels and some legislation has been passed about future goals. Definitely a lot of flights around the world in private jets to make this happen.
To my knowledge no land has been protected. Canadian oil and gas has been hindered so that we produce less I guess but the world is still using The same amount of fuel from other sources. No forests, no prairie grasslands nothing has been protected from development, farming or anything in the name of climate change. No trees have been planted. So, genuinely what has been done? We are talking about billions of dollars collected. Are we just gathering a good budget?

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by heretohunt

OK, so let’s assume that this whole climate change deal is completely on the up and up. What has been accomplished so far? From what I can tell taxes have been raised to crippling levels and some legislation has been passed about future goals. Definitely a lot of flights around the world in private jets to make this happen.
To my knowledge no land has been protected. Canadian oil and gas has been hindered so that we produce less I guess but the world is still using The same amount of fuel from other sources. No forests, no prairie grasslands nothing has been protected from development, farming or anything in the name of climate change. No trees have been planted. So, genuinely what has been done? We are talking about billions of dollars collected. Are we just gathering a good budget?

The simple truth is that the carbon tax was not used to protect the environment, the oilsands plants actually did plant a lot of trees, whereas the government did not, and we are still importing oil, and sending money overseas, that could be supporting Canadians. So all that really happened, was that the carbon tax drove up the price of every product and service we purchase, adding to inflation, and a lot of virtue signaling occurred. And of course Quebec has a new cement plant that was exempted from the emissions standards, while oil and gas projects were cancelled, at the cost of Canadian jobs lost.

[cody j]

Originally Posted by heretohunt

OK, so let’s assume that this whole climate change deal is completely on the up and up. What has been accomplished so far? From what I can tell taxes have been raised to crippling levels and some legislation has been passed about future goals. Definitely a lot of flights around the world in private jets to make this happen.
To my knowledge no land has been protected. Canadian oil and gas has been hindered so that we produce less I guess but the world is still using The same amount of fuel from other sources. No forests, no prairie grasslands nothing has been protected from development, farming or anything in the name of climate change. No trees have been planted. So, genuinely what has been done? We are talking about billions of dollars collected. Are we just gathering a good budget?

Virtue signaling, it’s priceless

[tirebob]

Originally Posted by silver

If you really want to stop climate change and green house gasses, why don't you change the biggest polluter in the world, China.

They produce 30% of the worlds greenhouse gasses and yet none of the climate change treaties include China.

Canada produces about 1.6% of the worlds gasses so it really doesn't matter what we do here. We could cut our gasses to zero and China would make that up by the end of the year.

It is so ridiculous it is almost comical. Especially considering one of our best potential exports that got kiboshed was LNG which was destined for China and would have helped them get off the coal and onto something cleaner and better for the environment in the interim and would have helped everyone, but nooooooo.... Virtue signalling to the UN is far more important, amirite??

[58thecat]

Experiencing it right now!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[I’d rather be outdoors]

Originally Posted by 58thecat

Experiencing it right now!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jealous. Too bad we didn’t get the warm part of global warming…this cold should make for some good hunting though. Good luck!

[glen moa]

I believe we should pump every last lick of oil out of the ground in Canada and use a bit of the money to build nuclear power plants.

[Rvsask]

Originally Posted by heretohunt

OK, so let’s assume that this whole climate change deal is completely on the up and up. What has been accomplished so far? From what I can tell taxes have been raised to crippling levels and some legislation has been passed about future goals. Definitely a lot of flights around the world in private jets to make this happen.
To my knowledge no land has been protected. Canadian oil and gas has been hindered so that we produce less I guess but the world is still using The same amount of fuel from other sources. No forests, no prairie grasslands nothing has been protected from development, farming or anything in the name of climate change. No trees have been planted. So, genuinely what has been done? We are talking about billions of dollars collected. Are we just gathering a good budget?

I’m no fan of the carbon tax, I assure you that. But is Alberta not producing record amounts? The first half of 2022 was at record anyways and as of late September the oil sand production was at record levels, not sure about right now. So is it really hindered or is that political jockeying as well? With everything else, I agree.

[traderal]

Originally Posted by glen moa

I believe we should pump every last lick of oil out of the ground in Canada and use a bit of the money to build nuclear power plants.

Yep and we should 100% own it, control it, and have a made in Alberta low electrical pricing structure.