Al Gore slams the tories' new environmental plan!

[Daradon]

^^^ exactly, it acutually quite easy.

Doesn't have to be one huge change in one part of industry, just a bunch of small changes by consumers, industry and government.

The fear is corporate based and without significant reason.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by HOZ

It is quite obvious that you cannot conceptualise that I can be a skeptic of the DOOMS DAY hysterics and their extremely distasteful leaders like Suzuki and Gore who profit off of it. Yet can still believe in Global Warming.

I have some very serious doubts that this is anything other than a mostly natural phenomina. That even if we do cut back global warming will continue unabated. It would be great to cut back on polution just for the sake of cleanliness and health! BUT, if we implemented many of the radical ideas floating around without looking at the costs and affects that they will cause I believe we'd create a greater manmade natural disaster. A Haiti on a continental level!

However, for you, since I am a skeptic this thinking is not possible. I am all for polluting. In fact, I am going to change the oil in my car and dump it straight down the drain. For that is all you can conceptualize about me.

One thing that I can "conceptualize" is that you must have had a meeting yesterday and learned a new word.

I don't know what "radical ideas" it is you are afraid of, but if you think people who are concerned about the environment are willing to turn North America into a poverty stricken hellhole, you have been misled. We live here too.

[MarchHare]

I don't know what "radical ideas" it is you are afraid of, but if you think people who are concerned about the environment are willing to turn North America into a poverty stricken hellhole, you have been misled. We live here too.

There was a thread posted here a few weeks ago about Google starting a project to generate 100% of the power used on their corporate campus in-house using solar panels. They projected that the savings they would make by no longer having to pay a utility company for electricity would cover the cost of the project after (IIRC) seven years.

But wait! How can that be?! A successful business is making a pro-environment decision and increasing their profits at the same time? That's just crazy-talk! What's next, dogs living with cats?

[Edit]
Here's the thread: http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=40333

[Bobblehead]

Interesting thing I read yesterday about the recent windmill turbine generation. E112

Enercon, Germany's largest wind turbine manufacturer, now makes the most powerful wind turbine in the world, the E112. This giant turbine was upgraded, so that instead of generating 4.5 megawatts, it now produces 6 megawatts — that's enough to supply power to 4000 homes in Germany. It's named the E112 because it has a rotor diameter of 112 meters (about 367 feet). It also has an innovative gearless drive system, so it doesn't require any oil to operate. The tips of the turbine's blades are tilted to reduce noise emissions.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Flame On

I don't understand how it's a "warm fuzzy" feeling to use a lightbulb that lasts longer and you don't have to change as often and saves on your electricity bill.
I don't understand how it's rainbows and smiles to use a reuseable shopping bag for groceries.
There's two small things that add up to change.
I think on Oprah's green show (I know, snicker snicker) she said if every American replaced just one bulb with a CFT bulb it would take the equivalent of a million cars off the road. Or something like that. As an example of something very little, that can be done. If buying a different lightbulb changes your life or your wallet you have bigger problems. lol

yup - and those changes are happening fairly easy and will have some effect. all i was saying though is the large scale changes are going to take time to bring in. the electric car - fantastic possibilities. could use a bit more fine tuning but the main thing is, phasing that in is going to be a long process. it'd be great to get all gasoline powered cars off the road but a change like that won't happen in the span of a couple years - it will simply cost too much. i wasn't saying that being environmentally friendly is some huge pie in the sky dream - just that the timeframe some environmentalists sound like they want is.

[sadora]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

yup - and those changes are happening fairly easy and will have some effect. all i was saying though is the large scale changes are going to take time to bring in. the electric car - fantastic possibilities. could use a bit more fine tuning but the main thing is, phasing that in is going to be a long process. it'd be great to get all gasoline powered cars off the road but a change like that won't happen in the span of a couple years - it will simply cost too much. i wasn't saying that being environmentally friendly is some huge pie in the sky dream - just that the timeframe some environmentalists sound like they want is.

Bringing these large scale changes about is something that will not happen over night. We all know this, the problem is that the Tories' proposed plan is very weak. It does promise results, but far behind those of the rest of the world. No one is asking for the perfect plan, only a plan that does more towards achieving these goals.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

I'll PM you later, but I wouldn't say US wind farms are all over the place, yes more prevailent, but still a tiny slice of the energy pie.

I had to toss this out there, because I found it very interesting and I wanted know your reaction. There are currently 37 states that have wind farms, producing over 11,600 MW of electricity, and by years end that number will increase by one state and add another 67,540 kW capacity with the addition of 1524 turbines. The only part of the United States where wind power is currently not exploited is in the Gulf states, which is ironic considering their very consistent wind conditions. I guess that does make sense since that is the poorest section of the country and diversification in production is likely not high for unprofitable utilities. Any way, why does there appear to be more viable locations for wind power generation in the United States than there is in Canada? Is it environmental, or is it corporate influence?

[Bobblehead]

Here is an interesting article on Alberta wind energy production. Financial Post

Alberta expanded into windpower generation aggressively since deregulating its electricity industry eight years ago. With more than 4% of its power coming from wind farms in the southern part of the province, it is the national leader in the green-energy source.

But the growth turned out to be too much of a good thing and the provincial grid operator, Alberta Electric System Operator, slapped a ban last April on the construction of any more wind farms until the reliability issues are resolved.

While environmentally friendly, the typical wind farm in Southern Alberta can harvest wind only 35% of the time.

[Azure]

Good find Bobblehead.

While we have the best place for a windfarm in Canada, Pincher Creek is far from consistent with the wind. Today, for example, there is absolutely no wind. And it has been like that for the past week.

This happens at least twice a month...especially in the summer, meaning for 4-5 months, the windmills are only turning half the time.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Daradon

^^^ The details are all over this thread. Either you haven't read hem or have disregarded them.

OK, thanks for the descriptions, I'll comment on each idea individually.

Originally Posted by Daradon

But lets start. A hybrid car will significantly reduce the amount of gasoline you'll use. Going on the waste not want not theme, there are way too many SUV's and trucks that aren't fuel efficient. Not just for power, but in general. Because it costs more to sell an efficent vehicle. Well if you can't afford a vehicle, maybe you shouldn't have one. That would be lifestyle AND corporate.

OK fair enough, most people can do something here, but I'd like to re-classify small changes to miniscule changes. Yes we can do this, but it is not even a drop in the bucket, it is a drop in the Pacific Ocean. So if we want to feel good that we are all doing our part, OK fine this is great, but it won't do a thing to get us towards goals like mitigating climate change. Lanny had a long note about essentialy fuel source replacement, which is where the real answers are and where I was focusing my attention.

Originally Posted by Daradon

We use far to much electricity (and water and food etc but not the focus of this thread) Better bulbs, better appliances will cut down a lot. Better habits will help. I'm a huge saver, but I know so many who aren't Using lights and appliances they don't need to, having things on when they don't need to.


Better buildings and houses improve this even further. Use more natural light, add solar to your water heater/supply if applicable, better insulation. The list goes on and on.

Everyone does a litle bit, and it's so easy. That's why government can enact such measures and let the market take over. If on thing free market has proven it's very adaptable.

Again, true, low hanging friut, but not important in the sceme of things with maybe the exception of the proliferation of space heating. The amount of space that needs to keep warm is exploding as everyone owns larger houses with 10ft ceilings. I don't know if we can tell people to go back to smaller houses, but that has increased demand of heating energy person significantly, on this continent anyway.

Originally Posted by Daradon

You joke because you choose not to change or feel inconvienced. The answers are already out there and MANY OF US HAVE DONE THEM. With government and corporate support, it's only easier.

Businesses are afraid case they want to sell as cheap as possible to retain advantage. People are afraid cause they don't want to pay more.

But when the system gets standardized everyone will be selling/paying the same anyway. And yes we will be paying a tiny more, but that's the lifestyle change.

Way better than the consequences. And we waste too much as it is. Morally we do. We're pigs, we waste. It's our responsibility to get better.

Thank for explaining to me why I joke. Seriously, I left my mind reading cap somewhere and it looks like you must have picked up.

I don't joke, if anything though I trivialize your suggestions. They won't do anything except make individuals feel better. If your goal is to feel better then let's get new lightbulbs. If you want to address emissions then we need substitutes. I'm not pro oil, or pro emissions or pro global warming. I'm pointing out that many people don't seem to grasp an important issue and that is that the world is proliferating in population and consumption per person. And we all are dependant on sources of energy that create emissions. The solution will be substitution on a grand scale. Replacing powerplants, not lightbulbs.

The problem is that substitution isn't going to come tomorrow, and it won't come any quicker until people get off the populist "sign up for Kyoto" garbage and Suzuki and Gore running around knowing full well they are not accountable whatsoever for their actions and call the tory gov't a frauds (without any backup that I have seen) People need to understand and deal with underlying issues.

So what else can we do? I don't know for sure that is hard, but I'm surprised that we never talk about subsidizing the he// out of substitue development. IE R&D credits at 90% of costs, adding renewable energy departments and buildings at the UofC. I don't know, but more encouragement vs more penalties. Penalties are just going to cost consumers in the long run anyway, the oil company will make their buck, and pass on incremental tax to the consumer (most people haven't quite done that math yet)

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

I had to toss this out there, because I found it very interesting and I wanted know your reaction. There are currently 37 states that have wind farms, producing over 11,600 MW of electricity, and by years end that number will increase by one state and add another 67,540 kW capacity with the addition of 1524 turbines. The only part of the United States where wind power is currently not exploited is in the Gulf states, which is ironic considering their very consistent wind conditions. I guess that does make sense since that is the poorest section of the country and diversification in production is likely not high for unprofitable utilities. Any way, why does there appear to be more viable locations for wind power generation in the United States than there is in Canada? Is it environmental, or is it corporate influence?

I really don't know much about the states, maybe they have better incentives to invest. Maybe it is just freaking windy in the US? I suspect you don't see them in the USGC because their alternative fuel is quite cheap, and well, it is the USGC. Wind farms right now are as much about PR points as it is economics. Not alot of PR to be gained by littering them through Texas and Louisiana.

However I do have one question for you. You know that massive solar power plant in northern Phx south of the canal and just east of Scottsdale / Rural Rd? What's that thing about? Testing solar technology?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

I really don't know much about the states, maybe they have better incentives to invest. Maybe it is just freaking windy in the US? I suspect you don't see them in the USGC because their alternative fuel is quite cheap, and well, it is the USGC. Wind farms right now are as much about PR points as it is economics. Not alot of PR to be gained by littering them through Texas and Louisiana.

Actually, Texas has the highest concentration of wind farms outside of California, and is hot on their heels for number one. I wouldn't say that wind power is all about PR. The 11,600 MW they produce is impressive IMO, especially when you consider Hoover damn produces 2,000 MW. It's not a replacement for hydro, but it certainly is a good suppliment to the grid.

However I do have one question for you. You know that massive solar power plant in northern Phx south of the canal and just east of Scottsdale / Rural Rd? What's that thing about? Testing solar technology?

Sounds like it might have something to do with ASU. It sounds about the right spot for their plant. There's an ASU Solar Initiative program that is supposed to be quite promising and trumped up as viable alternative energy source for commercial and public use. Oh, and that's actually more south Phoenix, as far as the east end goes. You're at the north side of Tempe, the south side of Snottsdale, and the very south east corner of Phoenix. What's really mind boggling is that is very close to the geographic center of Metro Phoenix, and you can drive an hour and a bit in any direction before you really leave the megopolis. This city is freakin' HUGE!!!

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

One thing that I can "conceptualize" is that you must have had a meeting yesterday and learned a new word.

Umm...no.

You can't get your head around that the concept that I can be a skeptic about all the hysteria and still be pro-enviromental. That I can be pro-eviroment (I wonder if there is any other position); think that all these "green ideas" are great but skeptical in their practicality. I personally would love to see Alberta jump the fore in Nuclear technology and sell our massive coal reserves to fund it. But I also see the problems with that. I think that Gore and Suzuki and big fat capital H hypocrits who talk the talk but sure don't walk the walk. You can't conceptualize that I would think that way. Just doesn't register.

For you since I am a skeptic I am all for carrying on as usual and polluting. You have said as much.

I don't know what "radical ideas" it is you are afraid of, but if you think people who are concerned about the environment are willing to turn North America into a poverty stricken hellhole, you have been misled. We live here too.

Actually, I am sure they (you) are not. But if many of the ideas, even in this thread are implemented without a well thought out plan to their cause and effect will do exactly that. Did you ever consider what would happen to Alberta if oil revenue dried up? Every live in Alberta through the 80's? It was ugly!

Save me the "we can retrain them". That is such an easy out.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Flame On

IMO, like Hoz and Mykalberta spouting off about birkenstocks and making personal attacks about personal hygene. Whom also haven't raised a single point about the matter at hand and who have outright lied.

Excuse me? When have I done this in this thread? Or at any time? Find it please or retract it.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Umm...no.

You can't get your head around that the concept that I can be a skeptic about all the hysteria and still be pro-enviromental. That I can be pro-eviroment (I wonder if there is any other position); think that all these "green ideas" are great but skeptical in their practicality. I personally would love to see Alberta jump the fore in Nuclear technology and sell our massive coal reserves to fund it. But I also see the problems with that. I think that Gore and Suzuki and big fat capital H hypocrits who talk the talk but sure don't walk the walk. You can't conceptualize that I would think that way. Just doesn't register.

For you since I am a skeptic I am all for carrying on as usual and polluting. You have said as much.




Actually, I am sure they (you) are not. But if many of the ideas, even in this thread are implemented without a well thought out plan to their cause and effect will do exactly that. Did you ever consider what would happen to Alberta if oil revenue dried up? Every live in Alberta through the 80's? It was ugly!

Save me the "we can retrain them". That is such an easy out.

Placing nuclear material near the continents most valuable asset is definately something to be skepical of. We'd live near the worlds largest terrorist target and the home of a future disaster.

[Bingo]

I can relate to what Hoz is saying ...

I'm pro-Earth, anti-pollution, but feel it necessary to put a practical bent on things and make it realistic.

I recycle everything I can, I buy green products like the light bulbs, and pay attention to everything I can about things that we can do to conserve.

But I'm not for crippling an economy over unrealistic goals set in order to appease a massive political front that seems to be out of control. When you get people shouted down as alike to Holocaust deniers, or people suggesting that meteorologists that don't agree with global warming be decertified I get nervous.

Those that much in the right shouldn't be that worried about opposition, and yet they are.

I do think Al Gore is a joke, and a charlatan, but then I thought that before the guy got into his latest kick on saving the planet. However I do see that many reputable scientists with less to gain economically have a deep passion with this subject and they need to be heard.

But not without debate and opposition, that's the opposite of science isn't it?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Bingo

But I'm not for crippling an economy over unrealistic goals set in order to appease a massive political front that seems to be out of control.

WTF??? Crippling an economy? Where are you coming up with that line of thought? What economy would be crippled by becoming more green and being more efficient with the energy we have? How would halting the imports of fossil fuels, using our own reserves instead of imports, and supplanting the loss of energy with alternative sources "cripple" our economy?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Umm...no.

You can't get your head around that the concept that I can be a skeptic about all the hysteria and still be pro-enviromental. That I can be pro-eviroment (I wonder if there is any other position); think that all these "green ideas" are great but skeptical in their practicality. I personally would love to see Alberta jump the fore in Nuclear technology and sell our massive coal reserves to fund it. But I also see the problems with that. I think that Gore and Suzuki and big fat capital H hypocrits who talk the talk but sure don't walk the walk. You can't conceptualize that I would think that way. Just doesn't register.

I can "conceptualize" skepticism, environmentalism and pedantry, so please don't tell me I'm too dumb to understand anything that you've got a grasp on.

[/quote]

Originally Posted by HOZ

For you since I am a skeptic I am all for carrying on as usual and polluting. You have said as much.

I haven't said as much and I don't believe that. I don't think that many people really believe we should continue down this road even if they are skeptical, so I asked what was a rhetorical question because I knew the answer. Nobody thinks we should keep doing the things we are doing (consuming as fast as possible and accelerating that consumption while we are at it) but some people scoff at the "hysteria" even though they are in favour of slowing down consumption.

It's like you, based on your professed "pro-environment stance", are saying "we should slow down on the pollution but not because of global warming" while someone else says "we should slow down on the pollution because of global warming". The goal is the same even if the motives are slightly different, but you ridicule anyone who believes the staggering amount of stuff we burn through everyday could be changing the climate for the worse. Then you make up some crazy comparison to Haiti (and you say Gore has a Doomsday Scenario) and say that's what is going to happen if we try to do anything about it.

Originally Posted by HOZ

Actually, I am sure they (you) are not. But if many of the ideas, even in this thread are implemented without a well thought out plan to their cause and effect will do exactly that. Did you ever consider what would happen to Alberta if oil revenue dried up? Every live in Alberta through the 80's? It was ugly!

Who exactly is advocating a bunch of changes without a well-thought-out plan? We all know that isn't the answer, but it seems to be a concern of a lot of people. As though suddenly someone will say "that's it, no more driving" or "solar power for everyone in 1 year". This isn't going to happen. All the anti-Kyoto people (myself included, I guess) should be happy because we no know we aren't going to actually do it. On the other hand, I don't remember 1990 being particularly cold or dark or Haiti-esque. The original Kyoto idea was (if I'm not mistaken) to get to the emissions levels we were at that year or possibly slightly lower, and do so over like a 15 year period. It's not a rash decision and it wouldn't have been that hard to do. Hell, fuel-efficient cars, appliances and water heaters probably could have made up a big chunk of the difference.

Instead of at least slowing down or even stopping, we have actually sped up the speeding up. I read recently that between 1990 and 1999, carbon emissions from fossil fuels went up 0.8%. In 2000-2005, they went up 3.2%.

Nobody has made or will make any rash decisions that will lead to economic collapse. That sounds like the same kind of fearmongering you accuse Gore and Suzuki of.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

WTF??? Crippling an economy? Where are you coming up with that line of thought? What economy would be crippled by becoming more green and being more efficient with the energy we have? How would halting the imports of fossil fuels, using our own reserves instead of imports, and supplanting the loss of energy with alternative sources "cripple" our economy?

An example would be if a strict carbon tax was in place. The lobbiests would dance in the streets for a couple days. However presuming we do not have commercial sized substitutes in place we quickly realize that we need natural gas or heating oil for our houses, electircal power for our everything and refinied hydrocarbons for our vehicles.

Turns out a great part of our demand would not go away, things like gasoline could double in price, simply to pay off the carbon taxes. If the cost of transport doubles the cost of all goods that require transport goes up significantly. Cost of living goes up sharply, which inflation will absorb for awhile then a recession.

That's why governments don't just run out and say 'emissions cut in half!!', there are real life consequences that need to be weighted off.

[Flame On]

Edited Hoz. Sorry to lump you in there.