Green Tories? Harper Rolls Out Environmental Policy

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Lurch

Where did you get this idea? If you reduce emissions physically, there is no tax. If it is cheaper to buy the credits, you buy the credits. Kyoto basically set a cost of doing nothing, something which currently does not exist. It is possible for many companies, industries, etc to reduce emissions via better infrastructure/technology in a cost free manner - not universally true, but nobody really knows the extent to which "free pollution" is creating inefficient behaviour. As I've stated earlier, I've seen many examples where emissions could be reduced at a net savings - sometimes implemented, sometimes not. With a cost tied to doing nothing, the decision is much clearer and does not necessarily add anything to long-run cost.

Lurch, business is growing, looking oil as an example, the world demand is growing, Alberta is large, politically stable, source near a massive market. The Alberta projects will be the most economical no matter what, the only difference being that they will have another layer of tax on them.

Kyoto had absolute targets, well, when production grows the targets shrink on a per unit scale making unfathomable targets impossible.

[Flames in 07]

Tron, forget it.

RMS said on a different thread he is a new grad, fresh out of University.

Someone should make him the president of a large corp while he still knows everything.

RMS, do me a favor, when you are 35 or 40 look back on what you were like and what you 'knew' when you were 24 ... when you are done laughing, go on a BB and read from people who have a handfull of months of experience in something, who run their mouth like they know everything. See what you think then.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Lastly, this whole conversation is kind of irrelevant. Yes we can all use less, drive less, drive smaller, turn off the lights, but unfortunately when you look at what others, namely developing countries, India and China are doing and how much GHG's they plan to burn through it makes these small changes noble, but irrelevant.

That sounds a lot like a do-nothing approach. Or even worse, a pretty grim prediction for things to come.

You keep saying that "the prices will double" if we try to do anything. What are the prices going to do if we don't do anything? Like you said, India and China are going to be burning a lot of fossil fuels. That sure won't keep the prices down.

We are going to have to slow down our consumption. We might as well start now. North Americans use close to 30% of the world's energy. What we as consumers do is not irrelevant on a global scale.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Right, so I talk about what company I work for just to prove to you I've worked with wind. Right.

No, but some proof, any proof, of what you are saying is correct, because I know you won't be able to find any.

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

My point about profitability is that people will do what's profitable, and nobody is really into wind in any kind of way, there are a sprinkling of projects here and there, but mostly a PR motive, not a profit motive. You said people must find it profitable cause projects exist ... I'm saying their aren't many so many others can't find the profitability. Maybe not something you can understand, just get someone from the real world to help you out with that.

If you call over 216 countries all around the world a few sprinkling. Again, please do some research before you post. It prevents you from looking like a jackass. I would also like to know where you get your information from that says that it isn't profitable, because I can give you information that says it is. The great majority of people have no idea who is financing wind farms, so to say it is mostly a PR move just reflects how little knowledge you have on the topic. What you seem to fail to understand is that I can say whatever I want on these forums, but until I can back it up with facts, they are about as useful as your posts.

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

I get that fossil fuels are non-renewable, I get we have a problem, my point from the very start was not anti - green, as you so judged.
9By the way, is putting words in other peoples mouth a rare occurance or do you do that on a regular basis with people ... only way you can win an arguement in your mind I suppose.) But that a solution will be hard ... wind is very localized and still not proving to be useful yet, solar is not economic by a mile so then what? as we take away, or tax fossil fuel consumption even more, or development projects; prices will go up, and the masses won't have it. Simple as that.

Again, if wind and sun are not the solution, then what is? I don't want to hear your criticisms to the only alternative, sustainable fuel sources we have, I want to know what YOU think should be done to prepare for oil depletion, either than "let's just use oil".

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

BTW, there is more than 100 years of fossil fuels around ... again something someone from the real world may be able to help you out with.

BTW there is less than 10 years of fossil fuels around. Who cares if I can back that up or not, it's true because I say it is.

In the real world, we use facts, not opinions based on what we think. I don't think I am going to respond to any more of your posts until you can back up what you're saying with proof.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Tron, forget it.

RMS said on a different thread he is a new grad, fresh out of University.

Someone should make him the president of a large corp while he still knows everything.

RMS, do me a favor, when you are 35 or 40 look back on what you were like and what you 'knew' when you were 24 ... when you are done laughing, go on a BB and read from people who have a handfull of months of experience in something, who run their mouth like they know everything. See what you think then.

Why don't you do the whole forum a favour and stick to the topic at hand and provide some useful posts? I could really care less what you think of me, but in case you forgot, this thread is about green policies, not my age.

Which is 22, not 24 by the way.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

That sounds a lot like a do-nothing approach. Or even worse, a pretty grim prediction for things to come.

You keep saying that "the prices will double" if we try to do anything. What are the prices going to do if we don't do anything? Like you said, India and China are going to be burning a lot of fossil fuels. That sure won't keep the prices down.

We are going to have to slow down our consumption. We might as well start now. North Americans use close to 30% of the world's energy. What we as consumers do is not irrelevant on a global scale.

Not a do nothing approach, just unfortunately a comment on materiality ... and yes, a pretty grim picture. The talk of Kyoto and conservation is nice, but for countries that are still developing or growing at 9% per year, their demands simply leave collective changes around our driving habits somewhat unimportant ... we can and should change, but it won't make that much difference.

To me, a substitute, maybe one we don't fully understand yet will need to be phased in as a replacement.

The prices comment ignored international demand. Put it this way ... All things being the same, things like Kyoto or any kind of emission tax will simply be a burden on the consumer.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Why don't you do the whole forum a favour and stick to the topic at hand and provide some useful posts? I could really care less what you think of me, but in case you forgot, this thread is about green policies, not my age.

Which is 22, not 24 by the way.

The very first line of your very first post repling to me ... the one where you assumed I was anti-green ... turned your entire tirade from a discussion of facts to one of namecalling and chest pounding.

Everyone else on here discussing things ... while you 'dare' someone to repeat something back to you. (BTW what's going to happen if they do repeat that list of three things? you gonna get your friends and go beat him/her up?)

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Not a do nothing approach, just unfortunately a comment on materiality ... and yes, a pretty grim picture. The talk of Kyoto and conservation is nice, but for countries that are still developing or growing at 9% per year, their demands simply leave collective changes around our driving habits somewhat unimportant ... we can and should change, but it won't make that much difference.

To me, a substitute, maybe one we don't fully understand yet will need to be phased in as a replacement.

The prices comment ignored international demand. Put it this way ... All things being the same, things like Kyoto or any kind of emission tax will simply be a burden on the consumer.

I'm not a particular fan of Kyoto either. It seems to me that it's a whole lot of paper shuffling and not much in the way of results.

If it's going to have to be a substitute then we better get cracking on it. Time's a wasting.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I'm not a particular fan of Kyoto either. It seems to me that it's a whole lot of paper shuffling and not much in the way of results.

If it's going to have to be a substitute then we better get cracking on it. Time's a wasting.

Kyoto to me was an empty and impossible promise that someone else's administration would have to worry about.

[Kaon]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

BTW there is less than 10 years of fossil fuels around. Who cares if I can back that up or not, it's true because I say it is.

In the real world, we use facts, not opinions based on what we think. I don't think I am going to respond to any more of your posts until you can back up what you're saying with proof.

That's interesting, but an amazingly stupid comment. Devon/Chevron/StatOil ASA discovered enough oil to increase U.S production by almost 50% a little over a month ago in the Lower Tertiary of the Gulf of Mexico. That's a discovery that has the potential to produce 14.65 BILLION barrels of oil.

I imagine that you must also know that most wells drilled only recover about 60% (It is around this amount, but can range, I'm sure someone here can confirm this with me) of available production in Canada, and that Enhanced Oil Recovery technology could never find a way to produce those reserves?

Of course you must also have taken into account that countries like Iraq that are rich in oil have seen almost no production under Saddam, and also have large reserves available for production. Policitically unstable of course, but still available production.

While this rant is quite a bit of topic I just don't see how you can be so narrow-minded and unable to view anything but your OPINION as fact.

Edit: Removed Barrel/day, I realized as I left the office that number was way off.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

One idiotic idea off the top of my head is to send a giant disc into space (like huge) and manipulate its position to allow for more/less light/heat to hit certain areas of the earth

Okay.

Uhm, I get my power from www.bullfrogpower.com . It's 80% hydro-electric and 20% wind. Yes, it is expensive. It's easily 25% more than Ottawa Hydro which predominantly uses nuclear and fossil fuels. I also do not drive a car. It's public transportation everywhere. And despite living in an apartment where the heat is included in the rent, I rarely turn it on and prefer to bundle up.

But I have no illusions that we will stop global warming. When people are so damn adverse to believing what the scientists have to say that they will believe instead that we can send a giant disc into space to stop it, there really is no hope. I only make my "sacrifices" so that I know that I am doing my own part.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Kaon

That's interesting, but an amazingly stupid comment. Devon/Chevron/StatOil ASA discovered enough oil to increase U.S production by almost 50% a little over a month ago in the Lower Tertiary of the Gulf of Mexico. That's a discovery that has the potential to produce 14.65 BILLION barrels of oil.

14.65 billion barrels certainly sounds pretty impressive. Considering they'll go through 100 million barrels by this time Monday afternoon (200 million by the following Saturday, 300 million by the end of the month) it's not all that special.

[Kaon]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

14.65 billion barrels certainly sounds pretty impressive. Considering they'll go through 100 million barrels by this time Monday afternoon (200 million by the following Saturday, 300 million by the end of the month) it's not all that special.

It is impressive given that reserves of that size really aren't supposed to be un-discovered according to many peak-oil theorists. With estimated world reserves currently sitting somewhere around 1300 billion barrels of oil, which as the lower tertiary shows can still be increased, that still places peak oil alone farther then 10 years. My point was more that it's ludicrous to suggest that all fossil fuels will be gone in 10 years. Peak oil will come, of that we all know, but to say that all production will be used in the next 10 years and then to use it to promote your argument that we need to be moving to wind now just doesn't make sense.

I think that it is a perfect supplement, but not currently a viable alternative regardless of whether or not a computer program can calculate potential wind values in regions worldwide.

I suppose I would be evil for suggesting that an economically viable alternative to gas turbines and fossil fuels is nuclear. Not that, that can of worms needs to be opened.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

The very first line of your very first post repling to me ... the one where you assumed I was anti-green ... turned your entire tirade from a discussion of facts to one of namecalling and chest pounding.

Everyone else on here discussing things ... while you 'dare' someone to repeat something back to you. (BTW what's going to happen if they do repeat that list of three things? you gonna get your friends and go beat him/her up?)

Yet another pointless post. Thanks for adding absolutely nothing to the discussion, which seems to be your style - but that's not my style, my style is more Red Mile Style.



I attack your posts because you can't back them up with anything and they are clearly your uninformed opinion. Your posts are anti-green, regardless of what you're trying to say, if you weren't you would be agreeing with me.

I was quoting Pulp Fiction, my bad if my reference to popular culture threw you a curve ball... I guess it has something to do with your age bracket....

ouch.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by Kaon

It is impressive given that reserves of that size really aren't supposed to be un-discovered according to many peak-oil theorists. With estimated world reserves currently sitting somewhere around 1300 billion barrels of oil, which as the lower tertiary shows can still be increased, that still places peak oil alone farther then 10 years. My point was more that it's ludicrous to suggest that all fossil fuels will be gone in 10 years. Peak oil will come, of that we all know, but to say that all production will be used in the next 10 years and then to use it to promote your argument that we need to be moving to wind now just doesn't make sense.

I think that it is a perfect supplement, but not currently a viable alternative regardless of whether or not a computer program can calculate potential wind values in regions worldwide.

I suppose I would be evil for suggesting that an economically viable alternative to gas turbines and fossil fuels is nuclear. Not that, that can of worms needs to be opened.

I think you mis-interpreted my original post.

I arbitrarily picked the number 10 to illustrate that I can say anything I want, but until I can back up my point with proof, it's pretty much useless. Such as the number of "100 years". I guess it's comforting to think that we don't have to worry about oil depletion in our lifetimes, but there is no proof out there that our oil supply will last that long - especially when consumption is on the rise and the whole peak-oil hypothesis.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Kaon

It is impressive given that reserves of that size really aren't supposed to be un-discovered according to many peak-oil theorists. With estimated world reserves currently sitting somewhere around 1300 billion barrels of oil, which as the lower tertiary shows can still be increased, that still places peak oil alone farther then 10 years. My point was more that it's ludicrous to suggest that all fossil fuels will be gone in 10 years. Peak oil will come, of that we all know, but to say that all production will be used in the next 10 years and then to use it to promote your argument that we need to be moving to wind now just doesn't make sense.

I think that it is a perfect supplement, but not currently a viable alternative regardless of whether or not a computer program can calculate potential wind values in regions worldwide.

I suppose I would be evil for suggesting that an economically viable alternative to gas turbines and fossil fuels is nuclear. Not that, that can of worms needs to be opened.

I have no idea when the oil will run out and I don't believe it's 10 years (I think the poster that suggested that was being facetious). I was just saying that 14.65 billion, while an impressive number, equals about six months of current consumption.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Okay.

Uhm, I get my power from www.bullfrogpower.com . It's 80% hydro-electric and 20% wind. Yes, it is expensive. It's easily 25% more than Ottawa Hydro which predominantly uses nuclear and fossil fuels. I also do not drive a car. It's public transportation everywhere. And despite living in an apartment where the heat is included in the rent, I rarely turn it on and prefer to bundle up.

But I have no illusions that we will stop global warming. When people are so damn adverse to believing what the scientists have to say that they will believe instead that we can send a giant disc into space to stop it, there really is no hope. I only make my "sacrifices" so that I know that I am doing my own part.

I did say it was idiotic. The point of my post, as I stated, was that there must be some way to reduce the earth's temperature through technology/science. If the earth is forecast to keep getting hotter regardless of our emissions (as the anti-human-caused-Global-Warming crowd says), is bullfrog power going to save us?

But thanks for using an emoticon to marginalize what I was getting at, I guess you needed it to express yourself better. I am not a space-disc advocate, and I thought I made it clear that I wasn't exactly pushing that as the way to go.

[Kaon]

Just to add something constructive along the main line of the thread, I think that so far this is a good first step, and if actually implemented will be more then the liberals ever did. Specifically I think that mandatory emission reduction for vehicles is something we should have done years ago.

On the topic of green, what do you guys think about plasma gasification to reduce/remove landfills, create sludge for roadways (reduction in asphalt), and create electricity? I personally thought it was interesting when I first read about it happening in Florida. Can't find a more reputable news source that doesn't require you to pay, (originally read about it in the Globe and mail) but here's a link to an article on it. http://www.greengeek.ca/2006/09/11/f...andfill-trash/

I think that things like this would be a good investment for governments to look into, especially in heavily populated regions, specifically Toronto and area which has massive problems with the amount of garbage it produces and where it's going to put it all.

Reduction targets per unit are actually obtainable given our current usage of energy and production of natural resources, but I can't see this being liked by environmental groups as this will not see us get anywhere close to Kyoto as long as we have oil reserves.

[Julio]

Originally Posted by Kaon

Just to add something constructive along the main line of the thread, I think that so far this is a good first step, and if actually implemented will be more then the liberals ever did. Specifically I think that mandatory emission reduction for vehicles is something we should have done years ago.

On the topic of green, what do you guys think about plasma gasification to reduce/remove landfills, create sludge for roadways (reduction in asphalt), and create electricity? I personally thought it was interesting when I first read about it happening in Florida. Can't find a more reputable news source that doesn't require you to pay, (originally read about it in the Globe and mail) but here's a link to an article on it. http://www.greengeek.ca/2006/09/11/f...andfill-trash/

I think that things like this would be a good investment for governments to look into, especially in heavily populated regions, specifically Toronto and area which has massive problems with the amount of garbage it produces and where it's going to put it all.

Reduction targets per unit are actually obtainable given our current usage of energy and production of natural resources, but I can't see this being liked by environmental groups as this will not see us get anywhere close to Kyoto as long as we have oil reserves.

Plasma gassification is an interesting technology, but as referenced here:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...ty-trash_x.htm
there are some issues with emissions not being proven to be harmless. Technology like this would be a real boon to places like,say Toronto, which has a fast apporaching garbage crisis.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Julio

Technology like this would be a real boon to places like,say Toronto, which has a fast apporaching garbage crisis.

I don't understand why more places don't follow the Nova Scotia model:
http://www.gpiatlantic.org/clippings...ngeo5-01.shtml

I did help out with the It's Not Garbage Coallition when I was younger and I spoke out against the incinerator in favour of the compost bins (which is what was adopted). There is no garbage "crisis" in Halifax anymore as there was when I was in university, the farmers have cheap fertilizer and the recycling centre is always busy. I don't understand why the same principle cannot be applied elsewhere.