Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
I think there is absolutely an agenda by the government to restrict oil & gas development. This includes the American government, who at this point might really like having Keystone built and flowing, but alas...can't be seen doing that.
As for the rest of whatever you're babbling on about, its not hard to understand why I would think it is important to properly manage our wood resources and how it contributes to our economy, the economy in North America (we export a lot of wood products), and the world market in general, including when it comes to emissions. I think burning wood pellets for energy is not serving the overall purpose of developing wood based solutions to combat things like emissions from concrete production.
On its own, burning wood pellets is likely a non-issue. But when you start thinking that perhaps the focus should be on getting more value out of wood waste or wood in general it starts making sense. Simple, really.
Of course you can't move past 'but Canada really matters when it comes to overall world emissions right, right.'  |
I'm legitimately confused by the things you've been saying in this thread for the last several pages, which is why I sent my last post. I was asking you if I understood you correctly, because from my view (how I'm reading it) you seem to be contradicting yourself. Me asking you if I understood your point of view wasn't meant as some 'gotcha'. It was me trying to make sure I understood you correctly, because maybe I wasn't getting the point of your posts. I will freely admit I'm even more confused now than I was before.
Several pages ago you argued that Canada's total carbon emission are a non-issue. You've since argued that a single industry in the overall Canadian economy is emitting terrible levels of carbon emissions and should be rectified. I struggle to see how these match up. How can the whole be okay but a small part of the whole is terrible? (The number of murders in Canada is acceptable, but the number of murders via lead pipes to the head is outrageous. As such, we should do something about murders that involve lead pipes to the head, but not any other types of murder in Canada). This is how you're point of view reads, and I will freely admit I struggle to see how this makes sense.
I mean the issue of proper use of energy resources is a valuable and worthy discussion. Carbon emissions, proper use of resources, etc. These are all concerning items. But from how I read what you wrote, you seemed to equate wood pellet burning versus oil and gas production as some sort of government conspiracy. As if the government is purposefully hurting oil and gas production while using wood pellets as some sort of 'green' 'cover'. I legitimately have no idea what point you were trying to make. Which is why I asked if I understood you correctly. I still don't understand. It sounds like you think there's a conspiracy of some kind?
I also don't understand what government you're upset with. You have talked about Biden, and now the American government. So you think Biden is promoting wood pellet burning but purposefully hurting oil and gas production because of image/optics? Okay, I guess. I honestly have no idea.
As for your last statement, excuse my confusion. In one post you say Canada's overall emissions are a non-issue and then 24 hours later you argue our practise of harvesting and shipping wood pellets is terrible for carbon emissions. I mean, I'm honestly trying to understand and take you seriously, but that doesn't make sense to me.
If you don't want people to question things you've said than maybe don't say it in the first place? And if you don't care about people understanding your point of view then what's the point of posting?