Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[peter12]

I don't think there is a lot of harm in trying to sell young men/incels a message of hope. I'm not a Pierre guy, but I really think this is being overblown.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by opendoor

A couple of reasons. First, because of this gigantic caveat in those numbers:

When a forest is cut down for commercial use in BC, it's generally replanted very quickly, and those growing trees start to recapture the carbon that their predecessors released when used for fuel.

Secondly (and this is the bigger issue), trees aren't really a long-term carbon sink like fossil fuels are. If a tree is left in nature, eventually it'll die and rot, releasing its carbon. And any carbon it has stored over its life was already in the environment/atmosphere within relatively recent history. The only way wood is an effective carbon sink is if its harvested and used in durable products, but even then we're probably talking about a century at most, for most wood products/structures.

With fossil fuels on the other hand, when you burn them you're introducing carbon into the atmosphere that hasn't been part of the environment for millions of years. And if you don't burn it and it stays in the ground, it'll never enter the atmosphere.

But I think most people acknowledge the next 50 or so years are going to be critical, and on that time scale most of what you mention is fairly irrelevant. If we are considering over hundreds of years, then yes, you could make the case for burning and replanting trees indefinitely. Burning natural gas results in far fewer emmisions today. Even coal is less. Since the problem is now, I think cutting and burning trees contributes to the problem, rather than solves it.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

https://e360.yale.edu/features/wood_..._co2_emissions

https://news.mongabay.com/2021/11/su...e-say-experts/



https://www.sec.gov/rules/petitions/...n4-741-exb.pdf

So if it is worse than coal, why are we using it? Just burn coal.

I'd guess the simple reason is Biomass is an active part of carbon cycle, while coal is release CO2 that was trapped before the great oxidation event. So presumably whatever space you open up in the biome by burning biomass will in short order be re-occupied by new life also consisting carbon.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

But I think most people acknowledge the next 50 or so years are going to be critical, and on that time scale most of what you mention is fairly irrelevant. If we are considering over hundreds of years, then yes, you could make the case for burning and replanting trees indefinitely. Burning natural gas results in far fewer emmisions today. Even coal is less. Since the problem is now, I think cutting and burning trees contributes to the problem, rather than solves it.

Again though, it depends on where the trees are sourced from. If they're logging a forest solely for pellets, then yes that's terrible for the environment. But if they're taking already logged trees with no commercial value from a clearcut that would otherwise just rot and release the carbon anyway? That's quite different. If the carbon is going to be released either way, we might as well get some energy out of it.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Again though, it depends on where the trees are sourced from. If they're logging a forest solely for pellets, then yes that's terrible for the environment. But if they're taking already logged trees with no commercial value from a clearcut that would otherwise just rot and release the carbon anyway? That's quite different. If the carbon is going to be released either way, we might as well get some energy out of it.

From the sounds of it, that's how they market it, but the reality appears to be different. Demand for waste wood looks to be greater than supply, so they are using more and more wood that isn't really waste.

[b1crunch]

Originally Posted by Azure

Considering the Biden Administration is offering a lot of funding for the wood pellet industry, I'd expect that number to grow substantially. Canada being the second largest exporter of wood pellets is a major part of the problem.

Also if you read into how these pellet burning companies operate you realize they are heavily subsidized and touted as 'green' by the government and that the same governments have setup the rules so that...

Gee, I wonder why its classified as being so 'green.'

Instead of burning it for fuel, wood waste should be primarily used for engineered wood products, an extremely fast growing industry in Canada & Europe, and then whatever waste is leftover for that process should be used to heat those facilities and power their equipment. There are many examples of companies across the world in that market doing exactly that.

Alright, so a few pages back in this thread you argued that Canada's percentage of the total global emissions was so small that it wasn't an issue worth worrying about, but now you're suggesting the harvesting and burning of wood pellets is a massive issue that needs immediate solutions. I mean, the whole harvesting and shipping of the wood pellets would be part of Canada's emissions totals, right? Why is the carbon emissions of associated with wood burning pellets (a single industry) an issue but the entire carbon emissions (all industries) as produced by Canada is not an issue?

I'm confused. (I'm not saying we as a society shouldn't care about the issue, we 100% should. I'm questioning the logic at which you seem to come to these conclusions, which seem to be at odds with one another.)

[#-3]

Originally Posted by b1crunch

Alright, so a few pages back in this thread you argued that Canada's percentage of the total global emissions was so small that it wasn't an issue worth worrying about, but now you're suggesting the harvesting and burning of wood pellets is a massive issue that needs immediate solutions. I mean, the whole harvesting and shipping of the wood pellets would be part of Canada's emissions totals, right? Why is the carbon emissions of associated with wood burning pellets (a single industry) an issue but the entire carbon emissions (all industries) as produced by Canada is not an issue?

I'm confused. (I'm not saying we as a society shouldn't care about the issue, we 100% should. I'm questioning the logic at which you seem to come to these conclusions, which seem to be at odds with one another.)

Special pleading, we just need to shift to argument to whatever supports the idea we don't need to change Albertas O&G industry.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by peter12

I don't think there is a lot of harm in trying to sell young men/incels a message of hope. I'm not a Pierre guy, but I really think this is being overblown.

But at a certain point you're kind exacerbating it by doing what he's doing. Sure, you could charitably say that by having that kind of tag on his channel, that vulnerable young men might find it and be positively influenced.

But it also makes it more likely that people viewing his channel (for whatever reason) are going to get recommendations for other channels that use that kind of tag and content. Essentially, when someone views Poilievre's videos YouTube's algorithm is going to be inclined to serve what it sees as similar content, which might push toxicity on people who never sought it out. If you look through the more popular channels that use that tag, it's a pretty sorry group of red pill and misogynistic content.

And that doesn't even get into the fact that 5 of his 30 or so keywords are about Ben Shapiro. He has "Shapiro" three times for some reason, and then "Ben" and "Ben Shapiro".

[PsYcNeT]

[Azure]

The research has shown that being able to replant trees doesn't necessarily mean that you offset the carbon being released into the environment over a short period of time. If you harvest fast growth forests, fine but from what I've read many places are using more hardwood or other long-growth trees. So if you offset the carbon 20 years down the road, is that than a net zero carbon fuel source? Not really.

Also, factor in all the other costs around the harvesting of the trees and making the wood pellets, which isn't being done for some stupid reason, and it looks even worse.

I mean it really is a dumb source of fuel if the wood waste can be put to better use.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by b1crunch

Alright, so a few pages back in this thread you argued that Canada's percentage of the total global emissions was so small that it wasn't an issue worth worrying about, but now you're suggesting the harvesting and burning of wood pellets is a massive issue that needs immediate solutions. I mean, the whole harvesting and shipping of the wood pellets would be part of Canada's emissions totals, right? Why is the carbon emissions of associated with wood burning pellets (a single industry) an issue but the entire carbon emissions (all industries) as produced by Canada is not an issue?

I'm confused. (I'm not saying we as a society shouldn't care about the issue, we 100% should. I'm questioning the logic at which you seem to come to these conclusions, which seem to be at odds with one another.)

I've literally been arguing for years that tree planting, utilization of wood based resources (such as wood waste), engineered wood products, CLT construction, etc are all extremely important when it comes to reduction of carbon emissions in industries such as construction. Concrete production alone accounts for 7% of the world's emissions, and WOOD is our primary way of moving away from that.

But you're not doing that if what you do with wood is burning it for fuel.

At the same time, Fuzz is right. Burning natural gas is more carbon friendly. So why are we not doing that instead of pumping taxpayer money into burning more wood pellets? I thought its all about what is better for the environment?

Or perhaps it is all about what is perceived to be better, and governments have zero interest in developing fossil fuel industries? And of course that wouldn't have anything to do with the lies that are associated with how oil & gas actually works in reality?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Azure

And of course that wouldn't have anything to do with the lies that are associated with how oil & gas actually works in reality?

Which lies are those?

[b1crunch]

Originally Posted by Azure

I've literally been arguing for years that tree planting, utilization of wood based resources (such as wood waste), engineered wood products, CLT construction, etc are all extremely important when it comes to reduction of carbon emissions in industries such as construction. Concrete production alone accounts for 7% of the world's emissions, and WOOD is our primary way of moving away from that.

But you're not doing that if what you do with wood is burning it for fuel.

At the same time, Fuzz is right. Burning natural gas is more carbon friendly. So why are we not doing that instead of pumping taxpayer money into burning more wood pellets? I thought its all about what is better for the environment?

Or perhaps it is all about what is perceived to be better, and governments have zero interest in developing fossil fuel industries? And of course that wouldn't have anything to do with the lies that are associated with how oil & gas actually works in reality?

So in your view there's a 'hidden agenda' by the government to favour wood pellet production and burning over oil and gas production? So, governments are labeling wood pellet production and burning as 'green' because they have some vested interest in doing it, but these same governments lie and/or deceive about practises in the oil and gas industry? And you're suggesting that these governments don't support wood pellet burning because it is supposedly 'green' but for other (unspecified) nefarious reasons? Do I understand you correctly?

Also, which government(s) are you upset with here? Federal/provincial/Canada/USA/UK?

Also, it sounds like you think Canada's contributions to global carbon emissions are a problem. Am I reading this right?

[woob]

Isn't the forestry industry in BC "regulated" as opposed to regulated? I feel like there's a lot of look the other way going on in regards to some of the behaviour of Big Wood™.

[b1crunch]

double post

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

mgtow, GTFO! And an endorsement from David Staples (E=NG!)

https://twitter.com/user/status/1578103232597004293

[aaronck]

Originally Posted by peter12

I don't think there is a lot of harm in trying to sell young men/incels a message of hope. I'm not a Pierre guy, but I really think this is being overblown.

As soon as they allow women to vote, this will certainly bite him in the a$$!

[Azure]

Originally Posted by b1crunch

So in your view there's a 'hidden agenda' by the government to favour wood pellet production and burning over oil and gas production? So, governments are labeling wood pellet production and burning as 'green' because they have some vested interest in doing it, but these same governments lie and/or deceive about practises in the oil and gas industry? And you're suggesting that these governments don't support wood pellet burning because it is supposedly 'green' but for other (unspecified) nefarious reasons? Do I understand you correctly?

Also, which government(s) are you upset with here? Federal/provincial/Canada/USA/UK?

Also, it sounds like you think Canada's contributions to global carbon emissions are a problem. Am I reading this right?

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.'

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by peter12

I don't think there is a lot of harm in trying to sell young men/incels a message of hope. I'm not a Pierre guy, but I really think this is being overblown.

I don't think the guy who boasts about being one of the first in Ottawa to support the convoy idiots deserves the benefit of the doubt. He's not using that tag to "sell messages of hope", he's using it so that he can be included in the social media bubble that incels create for themselves, aka reaching his target demographics

Poilievre is taking pages out of the Trump playbook and I really hope he doesn't get rewarded for it

[b1crunch]

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?