Cold, hard facts take the heat out of some hot claims

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Flame On

I think the ozone issue is for the most part a success story. Though I seem to remember reading recently that there's a gets worse before it gets better side to it. I'll try and find the article.
I think this is the one I read Ken0042.
Discover magazine.

Thanks for the link. The summarizing paragraph is interesting:

In the last decade, global ozone levels have stabilized or increased only slightly. All the same, experts estimate it will take 50 to 70 years for Antarctic ozone levels to get anywhere near pre-1980 levels.

Which brings me back to my original question, couldn't these holes in the Ozone layer; which allow a whack of solar radiation into the atmoshere; also be a contributing factor in global warming? Isn't one of the most noticable forms of radiation we get from the sun in fact thermal radiation; ie heat.

Am I missing something here? Because to this ditch digger, it appears we have an obvious problem; and this problem has a solution- start producing ozone in the antarctic. For those of you who skipped the grade 8 science class where they made ozone, all you have to do is create a spark through the air, and 3 molecules of ozygen (O2) will fuse to become 2 molecules of ozone. (O3) Can't we set up some sort of large scale "bug zapper" like contraption, that will shoot sparks across the atmosphere? Heck, even make it solar powered and run it from October to March every year.

I just don't see why this issue hasn't been brought up; unless of course somebody can explain to me why a hole in the ozone layer could not be a contributing factor to global warming.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I think it's a shame that this topic has been moved to debating whether or not a scientist knows more than a ditch digger ...

I think we can put that to rest ... unless the topic is ditches we can can conclude that a scientist in the field of global science probably knows a thing or two.

However, that doesn't mean that this scientist is right about whatever theory they hold dear to their hearts at the moment as hypothesis are likely changing as fast as the climate itself.

I'm not a pro-pollution guy, but I do think that there is a rush to judgement on this, and you hate to see focus and funds devoted almost exclusively to only one area when said area is far from proven to the extent of gravity.

Is the NASA mistake the end of global warming? Of course not. But I do think since the ranking was a hot button for a lot of global warming supporters including the opening of Gore's movie I do think it might be an assistance in getting people to slow down and really understand this before wasting a whole lot of money on solutions that many experts feel will solve nothing.

I don't want to drown or burn to a crisp either, believe me.

That's the disadvantage right there I think. One side: the man-made climate change and the need to address it side, seems required to have conclusive proof. Other wise it's just rushing in and ruining economies, even if there's very little proof of that. An impossible position, there are still people that believe the world is flat!
The other side of the coin seems to be satisfied with a minority of dissent from different sources and then it's; ok lets sit back and wait, steady steady.
I see your point, I just don't feel the science; as you wisely put it becuase it changes/evolves, will ever be "in" in a stable palatable report form, collated and stapled for a desk.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Flame On

That's the disadvantage right there I think. One side: the man-made climate change and the need to address it side, seems required to have conclusive proof. Other wise it's just rushing in and ruining economies, even if there's very little proof of that. An impossible position, there are still people that believe the world is flat!
The other side of the coin seems to be satisfied with a minority of dissent from different sources and then it's; ok lets sit back and wait, steady steady.
I see your point, I just don't feel the science; as you wisely put it becuase it changes/evolves, will ever be "in" in a stable palatable report form, collated and stapled for a desk.

The burden of proof does rest with the CO2= global warming side. I don't see that as a bad thing. Isn't that standard practice with any scientific theory?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flame On

That's the disadvantage right there I think. One side: the man-made climate change and the need to address it side, seems required to have conclusive proof. Other wise it's just rushing in and ruining economies, even if there's very little proof of that. An impossible position, there are still people that believe the world is flat!
The other side of the coin seems to be satisfied with a minority of dissent from different sources and then it's; ok lets sit back and wait, steady steady.
I see your point, I just don't feel the science; as you wisely put it becuase it changes/evolves, will ever be "in" in a stable palatable report form, collated and stapled for a desk.

I'm pretty comfortable with the science proving the world isn't flat if that makes you feel better!

I think there's a huge difference between scaring the living turd out of people and taking the focus away from every single other issue plaguing our planet and say ... working towards logical and effecient methods to protect the environment and not damage economies.

The way you set this up I need to prove global science isn't real and prove economies aren't being damaged, that's a tall order. You don't like the burden of proof on the pro side, but you're happy to make the other side prove the economic impacts?

Can't we assume a little of both are true, heck even a lot of both are true and then find some sort of compromise that makes sense gonig forward?

I'm a huge fan of incentives for man kind to move forward in place of threats and scare tactics.

And to reiterate again, as to say anything but you support global warming science completely inevitably ends with being called pro pollution or pro industry -- I'm not saying this isn't real. But I've read and seen enough to convince me it's being pushed a little harder than the proof should dictate and I have serious concerns over the complete waste that this movement may create.

It would be a real shame to see billions and billions thrown into projects that do little for an issue that turned out to be a long term trend when fractions of these investments could have rid the planet of a boat load of tangilble problems.

[Bobblehead]

There are scare tacktics on both side.

"The world as we know it will end"

vs

"We will all be ruined and thrown into a depression if we try"


How about a few steps like getting the passenger vehicles that belch blue smoke off the highways, and better emissions controls on vehicles overall. Add a levy on regular lightbulbs to make compact flourescents the obvious economical choice, and put the money from the levy into alternative energy development. Take some of the money going to all the roads, and put it into improving the transit system - I know there are people who won't take it because it is just so frustrating.

There are lots of things that can be done before any steps that would bring economic disaster. It doesn't need to be an all-or-nothing deal.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

There are scare tacktics on both side.

"The world as we know it will end"

vs

"We will all be ruined and thrown into a depression if we try"


How about a few steps like getting the passenger vehicles that belch blue smoke off the highways, and better emissions controls on vehicles overall. Add a levy on regular lightbulbs to make compact flourescents the obvious economical choice, and put the money from the levy into alternative energy development. Take some of the money going to all the roads, and put it into improving the transit system - I know there are people who won't take it because it is just so frustrating.

There are lots of things that can be done before any steps that would bring economic disaster. It doesn't need to be an all-or-nothing deal.

I agree 1000% ... but then I would have agreed with that statement five years ago without the absolute fear that we have in the media today.

I recycle
I use the right bulbs
I look for the right kind of paper products
I never leave a room without turning off the lights
I'm effecient in my use of heating/cooling
I take the C-Train every day

I'm with you on awareness, education, and any voluntary movement that helps the environment. Heck ... give a discount to citizens with less weight in garbage (or volume) at the end of the year, I don't know.

But none of that ciphens billions to one cause and leaves everything else on the planet in it's shadow.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I agree 1000% ... but then I would have agreed with that statement five years ago without the absolute fear that we have in the media today.

I recycle
I use the right bulbs
I look for the right kind of paper products
I never leave a room without turning off the lights
I'm effecient in my use of heating/cooling
I take the C-Train every day

I'm with you on awareness, education, and any voluntary movement that helps the environment. Heck ... give a discount to citizens with less weight in garbage (or volume) at the end of the year, I don't know.

But none of that ciphens billions to one cause and leaves everything else on the planet in it's shadow.

###. I have no problem doing things more efficient and less harmful for the environment. However the elaborate schemes many proponents of 'man made global warming' have entail expenditures in the billions with minimal real effects on the amount of carbon emissions. It reminds me a lot about gun control. Very sexy issue, was viewed as being able to save lives. Problem is for what it ended up costing it would have been more beneficial to twin the Trans-Canada in some trouble spots. It not only would have saved more lives but also would have decreased travel time and seen many economic benefits as well.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Bingo

But none of that ciphens billions to one cause and leaves everything else on the planet in it's shadow.

Are you suggesting that ANY industry on the planet receives more breaks and grants from the government than the O&G sector?

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Are you suggesting that ANY industry on the planet receives more breaks and grants from the government than the O&G sector?

Depends on which government we're talking about. If you're complaining about the Alberta government that's a little rich considering that many government ventures in the 1980s in different industries were a massive failure and the fact that Alberta has so few 'other' industries to throw money at. If it's the Federal Government compare say Bombadier with Canadian Natural Resources and tell me who gets more 'subsidies.' What about the automakers? They won't even annouce plans to build a particular car in Canada without the government offering to pay for realignment and refurbishment of their facility to build that particular car. And furthermore could you also explain in detail the exact 'breaks' and 'subsidies' that Oil and gas companies get ahead of other industries in Canada?

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by fotze

Every months Enmax bill should have 3 calculations on it:

Weight of garbage (weighed at the truck) X $2/kg = $14

Amount of water used X .2/m3 water = $50

Amount of electricity X .2/KWH = $50

Amount of gas X .2/m3 = $100

It should be simple without surcharges and access fees and maintenance fees and rider charges and all that. People can see plain as day, immediately in real dollars. Back calculate all those things into one per unit cost.

Also, attach flow/consumption rates on all appliances, fixtures and taps, so you can see that the bathroom sink being on for 1 minute costs you $.25, microwaving that burrito cost you a dime (I realize that these things fluctuate and all that).

The only way to fix it is to make it cost people money to waste,

###. Well, except for the fact that you have issues counting higher than 3.

But seriously, I look at my electricity bill of $60 per month, and only $20 of that is for electricity used. Meaning if I cut my electricity usage in half, I will only save myself $10 per month. For $10- many people would say "why bother."

Other things can be done. Have the dump take in old fridges, and if they are in working order you get a $100 gift certificate for some appliance store to buy a new one; because a 20 year old fridge uses 3 times the electricity of a new one- assuming it is in perfect working order. I'd rather see my tax dollars go towards helping people make the leap towards helping the environment.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Are you suggesting that ANY industry on the planet receives more breaks and grants from the government than the O&G sector?

Wasn't talking about grants or government at all ... though I think you'd be surprised to see the actual numbers.

I mean focus.

The world has a pet project right now and that means everything else is thrown to the curb as not important. Pretty scary if you ask me. Especially when you see how ineffecient some of these global warming projects have been suggested to be.

Imagine using the inventment of late in global warming to ...

1) combat aids
2) combat world hunger
3) beef up UN troops to the point that a massive army could be deployed within 3 days of any genocide on the planet and simply end it.

Just hate to see fear dictate attention to this one big issue when the issue itself is very much up for debate.

Dangerous.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by fotze

Also, attach flow/consumption rates on all appliances, fixtures and taps, so you can see that the bathroom sink being on for 1 minute costs you $.25, microwaving that burrito cost you a dime (I realize that these things fluctuate and all that).

Love that idea

That's the outside of the box thinking needed, not throwing billions at millionaires to put it where they please.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

And furthermore could you also explain in detail the exact 'breaks' and 'subsidies' that Oil and gas companies get ahead of other industries in Canada?

The tax relief O&G gets is criminal IMO. The breaks and dollars they get for exploration are also very lucrative. Let's also not forget how legislation gets bent or created to support the industry. This is also not just a Canada thing. This impacts every western country. O&G has received more breaks than any other industry imaginable.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

The tax relief O&G gets is criminal IMO. The breaks and dollars they get for exploration are also very lucrative. Let's also not forget how legislation gets bent or created to support the industry. This is also not just a Canada thing. This impacts every western country. O&G has received more breaks than any other industry imaginable.

Every industry has it's own nuances and thus many types of legislation and subsidies is in place for numerous industries. Oil and gas isn't the only 'special industry'. As for exploration, the reason why there is legislation allowing companies to save on exploration taxes is to balance off the Capital Cost Allowance disadvantage to other industries. For many manufacturing companies when they buy new equipment, bulidings, and any other asset etc. to improve production of their goods they are allowed a tax savings called a 'Capital Cost Allowance.' For an oil and gas company their assets aren't equpiment, but rather rights to oil and gas in the ground. How do they expand and find these additions to their asset base? They explore, shoot siesmic, drill some wells, to prove up their main assets. The equipment and the workers used to do this process are provided by contractors and they usually don't own the equipment.When a traditional company expands their business they build a new factory, add a new machine, buy more computers etc. They are allowed CCA deductions for these assets, so why can't an oil and gas company deduct expenditures related to finding more reserves which are also depreciable assets? And BTW there are also other examples of this same kind of 'break' or 'subsidy' in other industries such as mining, real estate, among others.

[Mccree]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Every industry has it's own nuances and thus many types of legislation and subsidies is in place for numerous industries. Oil and gas isn't the only 'special industry'. As for exploration, the reason why there is legislation allowing companies to save on exploration taxes is to balance off the Capital Cost Allowance disadvantage to other industries. For many manufacturing companies when they buy new equipment, bulidings, and any other asset etc. to improve production of their goods they are allowed a tax savings called a 'Capital Cost Allowance.' For an oil and gas company their assets aren't equpiment, but rather rights to oil and gas in the ground. How do they expand and find these additions to their asset base? They explore, shoot siesmic, drill some wells, to prove up their main assets. The equipment and the workers used to do this process are provided by contractors and they usually don't own the equipment.When a traditional company expands their business they build a new factory, add a new machine, buy more computers etc. They are allowed CCA deductions for these assets, so why can't an oil and gas company deduct expenditures related to finding more reserves which are also depreciable assets? And BTW there are also other examples of this same kind of 'break' or 'subsidy' in other industries such as mining, real estate, among others.

True but explortaion costs are 100% deductable where as new equipment etc.. you get a percentage each year.

[firebug]

Originally Posted by Mccree

True but explortaion costs are 100% deductable where as new equipment etc.. you get a percentage each year.

I guess it comes down to where you want to pay for it, at the gas pump or on your tax bill.

Either way the companies are going to earn their dollar.

~Bug

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I'm pretty comfortable with the science proving the world isn't flat if that makes you feel better!

I think there's a huge difference between scaring the living turd out of people and taking the focus away from every single other issue plaguing our planet and say ... working towards logical and effecient methods to protect the environment and not damage economies.

The way you set this up I need to prove global science isn't real and prove economies aren't being damaged, that's a tall order. You don't like the burden of proof on the pro side, but you're happy to make the other side prove the economic impacts?

Can't we assume a little of both are true, heck even a lot of both are true and then find some sort of compromise that makes sense gonig forward?

I'm a huge fan of incentives for man kind to move forward in place of threats and scare tactics.

And to reiterate again, as to say anything but you support global warming science completely inevitably ends with being called pro pollution or pro industry -- I'm not saying this isn't real. But I've read and seen enough to convince me it's being pushed a little harder than the proof should dictate and I have serious concerns over the complete waste that this movement may create.

It would be a real shame to see billions and billions thrown into projects that do little for an issue that turned out to be a long term trend when fractions of these investments could have rid the planet of a boat load of tangilble problems.

Well I wish all the "other side" were as reasonable as you then, because that seems damn reasonable.
You're right we shouldn't trip over our own feet to save ourselves. For example, I've heard that if we were to replace all of our oil with cleaner ethanol, humans would not have any space left to grow crops for food. Plus it might be nice to have some oxygen. So I know there's folly on both sides.
I guess I just feel that if momentum isn't on the climate change side, it will stall outright and then like those other problems (aids, Darfur, famine etc) will just be added to the list stuff we really do nothing about.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I'm not a pro-pollution guy, but I do think that there is a rush to judgement on this, and you hate to see focus and funds devoted almost exclusively to only one area when said area is far from proven to the extent of gravity.

Is the NASA mistake the end of global warming? Of course not. But I do think since the ranking was a hot button for a lot of global warming supporters including the opening of Gore's movie I do think it might be an assistance in getting people to slow down and really understand this before wasting a whole lot of money on solutions that many experts feel will solve nothing.

I don't want to drown or burn to a crisp either, believe me.

But Bingo, that's not the point.

This is going to be one of the greatest damned if you do/don'ts ever.

If we start with some of these so called emission cutting strategies like, Kyoto, and even though we ignore the practises of countries that don't jump on the bandwagon, if the climate cools in the next 20-30 years, it will be considered a victory for the people that claim humans are directly responsible for global warming.

If nothing happens, or if the climate continues to warm, the same people will say that we didn't do enough. Either way, that camp will be 'right' and the other camp, that believe that human effect on global warming is miniscule will be 'wrong'.

[Azure]

I don't get this 'other side' classification of Bingo. Seems to me he is right in the middle...right where I am, right were most here seem to be.

Is the other side always ignorant, selfish and greedy? That is an ignorant opinion within itself.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

I don't get this 'other side' classification of Bingo. Seems to me he is right in the middle...right where I am, right were most here seem to be.

Is the other side always ignorant, selfish and greedy? That is an ignorant opinion within itself.

Azure, you've never been centerist on anything.

I also don't see much center ground on the topic either. The topic is like the great pyramid. The vast majority of it has you on one side or the other, and the center ground is so miniscule that if you shift either way you are on one side or the other. In this debate, you either believe the science, or you dispute the science. You either believe the puck went in the net, or you believe its no goal. There are extremes to how far on each side of the discussion you are on, but you're on one side or the other. Bingo is definitely on the side where does not believe the science is conclusive of anything. He is a lot closer to the peak of the pyramid than most, but he is still on the other side.

I see this debate very much like a patient (the earth in this example) who thinks he is sick and showing symptoms. The patient has been examined by some of the best and brightest doctors around. There is a concensus that something is wrong, and something needs to be done. The majority of the doctors think it is either emphysema, lung cancer, or advanced heart disease. A minority of others feel that it could be other things. One thinks its athletes foot. One thinks its migrane headaches. One thinks its just a nagging wife and all symptoms will go away the minute she shuts up. Each of these dissenting voices have a different theory, don't agree with the other dissenters, but together they are sure it has nothing to do with the heart and lungs of the patient. Further tests are definitely required. All doctors agree with that.

So what should the patient do? Continue along with his 4 pack a day habit of smoking cigarettes? Continue drinking the 3 bottles of Jack Daniels he presently does? Continue eating at McDonalds four times a day? What is the patient to do? That is where this debate really splits. Those that believe the science also believe that something drastic needs to be done. The patient needs to immediately stop smoking, stop drinking, and start eating healthier. The patient needs to start living healthier if he has any hope of seeing a reversal, let alone survival. The other side sees it differently. They believe the patient can maintain his lifestyle while the doctors continue to run tests and argue amongst themselves about what is making him sick. There is no need to do anything different, as he's still alive and the symptoms aren't really all that bad. Everything is okay until the patient is either cured, or is dead on a slab. Those are the two sides of the Global Warming debate. Of course there are extremes on both sides (one side thinking the patient should start running marathons, and the other thinking the patient should party harder), but I think the analogy is pretty accurate.