Canadian Money Forum banner

681 - 700 of 789 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,024 Posts
We can certainly discuss temperature graphs, as in, generally the climate is warming on a global level but I think the biggest question is still ... What impact do humans (GHG production) have in this role?

So it could be that we spend all this time and effort on quick elimination of GHG and then the global temps keep on rising ... then what? Has anyone suggested a plan if that occurs?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,199 Posts
We can certainly discuss temperature graphs, as in, generally the climate is warming on a global level but I think the biggest question is still ... What impact do humans (GHG production) have in this role?

So it could be that we spend all this time and effort on quick elimination of GHG and then the global temps keep on rising ... then what? Has anyone suggested a plan if that occurs?
That's really the point.
1. This is going to happen.
2. What are we going to do?

Pretending we can stop an ice age from ending, well that's just silly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,184 Posts
The idea of a 45 degree angle on a chart is meaningless. Anything with a trend can be scaled to look like a 45 degree line.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,721 Posts
That's really the point.
1. This is going to happen.
2. What are we going to do?

Pretending we can stop an ice age from ending, well that's just silly.
Yes that has been my concern all along. Global warming is occurring so stop pretending we can stop it by eliminating CO2 emissions and start doing something productive about mitigation. Forget about GHG in Canada. Get a leader that can think logically.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,358 Posts
India and Pakistan brace for the most powerful storm ever recorded in the Bay of Bengal. Super cyclone Amphan has speeds of 270 kmh (165 mph).

It serves as a reminder that climate change continues on during the COVID pandemic and can't be ignored forever.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,226 Posts
The most powerful storm ever recorded is meaningless when the prior 99.99999% of the planet's weather history has no recorded data.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,184 Posts
Yes that has been my concern all along. Global warming is occurring so stop pretending we can stop it by eliminating CO2 emissions and start doing something productive about mitigation. Forget about GHG in Canada. Get a leader that can think logically.
This is a non sequitur. To say we can't "stop" it (as in immediately arrest global warming) is not argument for giving up on doing anything about carbon emissions and continuing to blissfully burn fossil fuels. That's like saying, "the house is on fire, we can't stop it immediately and it is going to burn more. Better look on realtor.ca for a new house instead of calling the fire dept."
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,024 Posts
This is a non sequitur. To say we can't "stop" it (as in immediately arrest global warming) is not argument for giving up on doing anything about carbon emissions and continuing to blissfully burn fossil fuels.
Pollution reduction is a good thing but they shouldn't be selling it as "it will definitely save the planet" when they don't know if it will have any significant impact.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,184 Posts
^ The argument is usually raised with the conclusion that we shouldn't do anything to disincentivize burning fossil fuels. Climate impacts are only one reason why we should reduce fossil fuel use. They kill and maim millions of people per year.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,024 Posts
^ The argument is usually raised with the conclusion that we shouldn't do anything to disincentivize burning fossil fuels. Climate impacts are only one reason why we should reduce fossil fuel use. They kill and maim millions of people per year.
Yup, usually the argument swings that way. Of course in the years ahead when ocean levels and/or temps are still on the rise all the current CO2 activists will just throw up their hands and say "guess we were too late" with no further plans to save lives.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,226 Posts
^ The argument is usually raised with the conclusion that we shouldn't do anything to disincentivize burning fossil fuels. Climate impacts are only one reason why we should reduce fossil fuel use. They kill and maim millions of people per year.
Fossil fuels also increased life expectancy by decades. But the alarmists ignore every single benefit that they have provided and key on a small percentage of negatives.

Give up fossil fuels and immediately 40% of all farmland (food for the world) would have to convert to food for the working animals...which don't exist yet. Of course, the very rich would secure the supply for themselves and let you starve. Then all the forests of the world would be cut down within a year to provide heating fuel.

There's a very good reason why alarmists, tree huggers, or environmentalists don't live off the land...it's far too hard. If it was such a wonderful life of Utopia they'd all do it. But none of them do it, or even want to try it. They just want to tell you how to live.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,199 Posts
This is a non sequitur. To say we can't "stop" it (as in immediately arrest global warming) is not argument for giving up on doing anything about carbon emissions and continuing to blissfully burn fossil fuels. That's like saying, "the house is on fire, we can't stop it immediately and it is going to burn more. Better look on realtor.ca for a new house instead of calling the fire dept."
The house isn't on fire, and you're not going to put it out.

It's more like winter (ie the ice age) is ending, it's springtime, and things are warming up. Sure things will change, but it opens up new growth.

Even if you accept the argument that burning fossil fuels is bad, how many people should we kill to stop burning fossil fuels? Of course this won't get an answer, because someone will argue the argument is absurd.

Lets not truck some people food, or not drive them to the hospital, or use the electricity to run their ventilator.

Just like COVID19 lockdown forever people, they pretend that their actions don't kill anyone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,184 Posts
Fossil fuels also increased life expectancy by decades. But the alarmists ignore every single benefit that they have provided and key on a small percentage of negatives.

Give up fossil fuels and immediately 40% of all farmland (food for the world) would have to convert to food for the working animals...which don't exist yet. Of course, the very rich would secure the supply for themselves and let you starve. Then all the forests of the world would be cut down within a year to provide heating fuel.

There's a very good reason why alarmists, tree huggers, or environmentalists don't live off the land...it's far too hard. If it was such a wonderful life of Utopia they'd all do it. But none of them do it, or even want to try it. They just want to tell you how to live.
No one is proposing banning fossil fuels. Just incentivizing replacement with non-/less-polluting alternatives. Do you think it will only ever be possible to farm with diesel? Even in say, 500 years, we'll still be powering our agriculture system with diesel for tractors and natural gas for fertilizer?

Where there is an economically viable alternative to using fossil fuels that is less polluting, I think we should be embracing it. Coal is largely being eliminated for power by natural gas and renewables. Batteries are getting better and EVs are eventually going to conquer the passenger vehicle market. Banning diesel for farm equipment would be irresponsible as there is no practical replacement yet. But diesel is just a necessary evil, not a good. If we can find a better way to power farm equipment that should be embraced as a good thing, no?

Most of the opposition seems to be rationalizations for people whose income is derived from the continued exploitation of fossil fuels. Kind of like how many residents of Asbestos, Qc refused to acknowledge the downsides of that material for decades.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,184 Posts
Even if you accept the argument that burning fossil fuels is bad, how many people should we kill to stop burning fossil fuels? Of course this won't get an answer, because someone will argue the argument is absurd.
You need to weigh that against the very real number of people killed by fossil fuels. You seem to be pretending that they are benign. They have heretofore made industrial civilization possible, but that does not mean that we should forsake any alternatives that could play the same role in a less polluting way.

You're not asking how many people died of exposure because we don't use asbestos for insulation anymore. Maybe at one time it made that difference and was worth its downsides. But it was definitely worthwhile to find better solutions to fit that need. Fossil fuels are always just a means to an end. We shouldn't be worshiping them as a end in themselves.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,184 Posts
You demand others do that but you refuse to consider how many lives have been saved.
Try reading it again. I said you had to consider both against each other. That's why it is a silly strawman argument to say it's either maximum oil or bringing back draft horses. You refuse to engage in discussions evenhandedly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,199 Posts
You need to weigh that against the very real number of people killed by fossil fuels. You seem to be pretending that they are benign. They have heretofore made industrial civilization possible, but that does not mean that we should forsake any alternatives that could play the same role in a less polluting way.

You're not asking how many people died of exposure because we don't use asbestos for insulation anymore. Maybe at one time it made that difference and was worth its downsides. But it was definitely worthwhile to find better solutions to fit that need. Fossil fuels are always just a means to an end. We shouldn't be worshiping them as a end in themselves.
I'm not pretending fossil fuels are benign.
I'm just pointing out that the alternatives aren't benign either.
And cutting off our current system before we have a better replacement will cost lives.


Which is worse, a bit of CO2 from natural gas, or toxic pollution from the production of a solar cell?
I'd say that it's very hard to say, but both are bad.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,721 Posts
I'm not pretending fossil fuels are benign.
I'm just pointing out that the alternatives aren't benign either.
And cutting off our current system before we have a better replacement will cost lives.


Which is worse, a bit of CO2 from natural gas, or toxic pollution from the production of a solar cell?
I'd say that it's very hard to say, but both are bad.
You get my vote! Proponents of alternative solutions are quick to say that all alternatives need to be evaluated equally but then proceed to recommend solutions that have not been adequately studied. The is how we embraced corn-based biofuels, now known to be an environmental disaster! Same with biomass for electric generation!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,184 Posts
Are you counting the toxic pollution from natural gas extraction (the millions of gallons of fracking fluid) that are often poorly controlled?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,184 Posts
You get my vote! Proponents of alternative solutions are quick to say that all alternatives need to be evaluated equally but then proceed to recommend solutions that have not been adequately studied. The is how we embraced corn-based biofuels, now known to be an environmental disaster! Same with biomass for electric generation!
Corn-based biofuels were embraced because politicians wanted to buy votes in Iowa. It was always a bad idea.

Interesting that the people who say 'wait until all the facts are in, preferably decades' on environmental issues are also often the proponents of using untested drugs/treatments for COVID-19 treatment. Not accusing you, kcowan. Just a pattern that your comment made me think of.
 
681 - 700 of 789 Posts
Top