Canadian Money Forum banner

21 - 40 of 59 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,747 Posts
They are both heavy oil production sites in Northern Alberta. I didn't think I needed comment but media always portrays the 1st photo when the 2nd photo portrays modern oil sands extraction.
I imagine showing caribou grazing on the 2nd site (I can't find that pic right now) would make a lot of activist heads explode.
Sure, but they're clearly different sites, likely using different technologies.
They might also be different types of extraction, different time periods etc.

As far as the media... follow the money.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,979 Posts
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from 280PPM to 380PPM in the last 100 years. That 100PPM has supposedly increased the temperature of the whole world by 1 degree. 100PPM or parts per million, is the same as .001%. That means CO2 is the most powerful insulation in the universe. If .001% will raise the temp 1 degree what would 100% do? Why don't we insulate our houses with CO2? We could take all the discarded CO2 from power plants and put it into bubble wrap and use it to insulate our houses. This would sequester the CO2 and make our houses so well insulated we could heat them all winter on 1 gallon of oil. It makes at least as much sense as any other proposal, most of which don't even pretend to cure the problem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,298 Posts
As far as the media... follow the money.
Indeed, lots of money. Generally it's extremely wealthy conservatives funding nonsensical climate change denial.

Meet the Money Behind The Climate Denial Movement

“The anti-climate effort has been largely underwritten by conservative billionaires,” says the Guardian, “often working through secretive funding networks. They have displaced corporations as the prime supporters of 91 think tanks, advocacy groups and industry associations which have worked to block action on climate change.”
. . .
So it’s kind of a combination of both industry and conservative philanthropies that are funding this process, and what they did was they borrowed a great deal of the strategy and tactics that came out of the tobacco industry’s efforts to prevent action on the health impacts of smoking.
Don't be a sucker... don't fall for it. Think for yourself and don't become a puppet of rich elites.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,747 Posts
Indeed, lots of money. Generally it's extremely wealthy conservatives funding nonsensical climate change denial.

Meet the Money Behind The Climate Denial Movement



Don't be a sucker... don't fall for it. Think for yourself and don't become a puppet of rich elites.
Trudeau is literally bribing the mainstream media with tax dollars, while suing independent media that's trying to hold him accountable.

I do think for myself.
My question is why you don't you think the toxic waste from "Green Energy" is a problem?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,544 Posts
Discussion Starter #25
If you dig a bit deeper, you will find explanations of why changes in the amount of greenhouse gases in atmosphere cause changes in the temperature of the environment we live in. It is a bit complex.

However, CO2 can be used to keep our homes warm (or cool). But not as insulation! Most heat pumps use greenhouse gases as refrigerants. We have one ourselves. CO2 can and has been used as the refrigerant. CO2 Heat Pumps: A Key Piece in a Decarbonized Future
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,045 Posts
Climate activists have basically pushed the whole "environment" to be atmospheric CO2, with almost no nuance.
Massive pollution from (mining for) batteries... at least it's not atmospheric CO2.

It's such a simplistic view on "the environment" it's bound to be wrong.
And the EV haters like to concern troll about mining for battery raw materials, but fail to consider the mining required to support the fossil fuel alternative. Example is concern trolling about cobalt used in batteries. Never mind that a lot of cobalt is used in refining gasoline.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,045 Posts
I always know when to discount an article or picture of the oil sands when they use the term "tar sands". That's an immediate flag to exit whatever you're reading.
Wasn't it originally called tar sands, and oil sands was a bit of rebranding to euphemize the resource? Ie, oil sands is the newspeak.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,747 Posts
And the EV haters like to concern troll about mining for battery raw materials, but fail to consider the mining required to support the fossil fuel alternative. Example is concern trolling about cobalt used in batteries. Never mind that a lot of cobalt is used in refining gasoline.
Sure, but that's the problem, everyone is attaching labels and slurs and failing to actually discuss the issues fairly.

For example, your post suggests you think I'm an EV hater.
I want an EV, I think my next car will be an EV.
The technology just isn't there for my use case yet. When the vehicles are good enough, I'll switch.

Just because I think there are serious environmental concerns with Green Energy and EV's doesn't mean I don't think they're the way forward. That's actually the problem, there are trade off with both, but people don't want to discuss them rationally.
I see a few reasons.
1. The religion of Climate change must not be questioned.
2. They neither don't understand that there are trade offs or don't want to acknowledge them.

Instead they'll label anyone who raises concerns about them as "haters".

I'm simultaneously very bullish on EVs, and very skeptical of many claims.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,045 Posts
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from 280PPM to 380PPM in the last 100 years. That 100PPM has supposedly increased the temperature of the whole world by 1 degree. 100PPM or parts per million, is the same as .001%. That means CO2 is the most powerful insulation in the universe. If .001% will raise the temp 1 degree what would 100% do? Why don't we insulate our houses with CO2? We could take all the discarded CO2 from power plants and put it into bubble wrap and use it to insulate our houses. This would sequester the CO2 and make our houses so well insulated we could heat them all winter on 1 gallon of oil. It makes at least as much sense as any other proposal, most of which don't even pretend to cure the problem.
You're arguing with basic high school science (CO2 is a greenhouse gas). Most denialists don't even do this--take your denialism elsewhere.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,045 Posts
Sure, but that's the problem, everyone is attaching labels and slurs and failing to actually discuss the issues fairly.

For example, your post suggests you think I'm an EV hater.
I want an EV, I think my next car will be an EV.
The technology just isn't there for my use case yet. When the vehicles are good enough, I'll switch.

Just because I think there are serious environmental concerns with Green Energy and EV's doesn't mean I don't think they're the way forward. That's actually the problem, there are trade off with both, but people don't want to discuss them rationally.
I see a few reasons.
1. The religion of Climate change must not be questioned.
2. They neither don't understand that there are trade offs or don't want to acknowledge them.

Instead they'll label anyone who raises concerns about them as "haters".

I'm simultaneously very bullish on EVs, and very skeptical of many claims.
Life cycle analysis of EVs show that they are far more energy efficient than ICE vehicles. The higher initial energy investment is recouped early in a typical vehicle's lifetime. Only a granny car that spends all its time in the garage would be more ecologically friendly as an ICE vehicle.

The reason why people are unwilling to engage in nuance is that it plays into the hands of the merchants of doubt trying to delay any action on fossil fuel reduction. It was the same whataboutism used by the tobacco industry to delay regulation.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,424 Posts
And the EV haters like to concern troll about mining for battery raw materials, but fail to consider the mining required to support the fossil fuel alternative. Example is concern trolling about cobalt used in batteries. Never mind that a lot of cobalt is used in refining gasoline.
I know you guys (not just you andrewf) love to throw pebbles at each other's glass houses but can't you at least research your positions a little for context in the discussion.

Each Tesla Model 3 = 10+lbs of cobalt (unknown amount recovered, if they even get recycled)
6.6 million gallons of gas = 1lb of cobalt (avg car miles = 200 million miles)

Now if they can (and will) recover almost all the colbalt in EV batteries that would be really good. Right now is the time to mandate that ALL EV makers be required to show recycling numbers and take responsibility that they do get properly recycled.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,979 Posts
You're arguing with basic high school science (CO2 is a greenhouse gas). Most denialists don't even do this--take your denialism elsewhere.
I'm not arguing, I'm agreeing. If CO2 really is as powerful a greenhouse gas as they say, we should use it to our benefit by insulating our houses with it. What is unscientific about that?
Besides, the Global Warming, excuse me, Climate Change panic is over. We gave Justin Trudeau billions of dollars in extra taxes to solve the problem, remember?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,717 Posts
Tar is an incorrect description of oil sands. They are significantly different compounds and hence the name was changed to correctly describe the compound. Just like gasoline is not diesel is not butane. Course that would not fit the agenda of some...which then undermines their credibility on that subject matter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,577 Posts
As I recall, everyone referred to the Alberta Tar Sands years ago. That was an objectionable moniker to some and it drifted into "oil sands" description.

I do agree that the use of "tar sands" today is revived primarily to cast the oil industry in a bad light. I am not personally concerned with labels though.

It is a dirty fuel source to produce and to burn...but is what we have to sell, so we should use it to earn the money to fund a better future with alternative energy.

Nothing is going to dramatically change overnight, but technology in green energy has progressed in leaps and bounds.

Improvements in solar panels and wind turbines have led to greater efficiencies and fewer problems. Nothing will stop the steady progression of technology.

We don't have to race to safe harbour. All we have to do is turn the ship around and start going in the right direction.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,747 Posts
Life cycle analysis of EVs show that they are far more energy efficient than ICE vehicles. The higher initial energy investment is recouped early in a typical vehicle's lifetime. Only a granny car that spends all its time in the garage would be more ecologically friendly as an ICE vehicle.

The reason why people are unwilling to engage in nuance is that it plays into the hands of the merchants of doubt trying to delay any action on fossil fuel reduction. It was the same whataboutism used by the tobacco industry to delay regulation.
Care to share that life cycle analysis?

I believe it might be getting closer, but most I've seen.
1. Compare different vehicles.
2. Negate or ignore non CO2 impact. Ie toxic runoff.
3. I don't know any that use the marginal CO2 production to charge, and instead assume low CO2 electricity sources, rather than the sources that will actually be used.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
171 Posts
I am all for doing what we can to improve the environment and influence climate change. But what really gets me, is when climate activists post misleading information.
Do you get as equally irate with the much more numerous, misleading, and truth distorting postings from the Petrochemical industry?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,747 Posts
Do you get as equally irate with the much more numerous, misleading, and truth distorting postings from the Petrochemical industry?
It's hard to argue which is "more numerous", however when one is pushing bad policy that hurts people, that's the one that upsets me.
Unfortunately no price is too high for the CO2 warriors.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,298 Posts
It's hard to argue which is "more numerous", however when one is pushing bad policy that hurts people, that's the one that upsets me.
Exactly, the problem is bad policy AND the money that gets in the way of bringing policy that it's the best interest of citizens.

Allowing dangerous industrial activity that is harmful to the public, without strict regulations that curb it, is a prime example of bad policy that hurts people.

Most jurisdictions in the world have actually figured out how dangerous heavy carbon emissions are. There seem to be two outliers ... the USA, and Alberta (and it looks sad).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,747 Posts
Exactly, the problem is bad policy AND the money that gets in the way of bringing policy that it's the best interest of citizens.

Allowing dangerous industrial activity that is harmful to the public, without strict regulations that curb it, is a prime example of bad policy that hurts people.

Most jurisdictions in the world have actually figured out how dangerous heavy carbon emissions are. There seem to be two outliers ... the USA, and Alberta (and it looks sad).
I agree with you.
Except you're wrong on policy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,045 Posts
Care to share that life cycle analysis?

I believe it might be getting closer, but most I've seen.
1. Compare different vehicles.
2. Negate or ignore non CO2 impact. Ie toxic runoff.
3. I don't know any that use the marginal CO2 production to charge, and instead assume low CO2 electricity sources, rather than the sources that will actually be used.
Here are several:



 
21 - 40 of 59 Posts
Top