deGrasse Tyson & Nye on Climate Change

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Thor

I just re-read the article, took me 17 seconds.

If you can't be bothered to read it, why bother having a conversation or even an opinion on the subject.

I didn't bother because I wasted my time and money on a time magazine about the same thing going to happen in the 70's. At 10 years old I cut 3 lawns to pay for that trash.

When the planet stops warming every year I'll give my time to a new ice age...fair?

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I don't think it really matters. I'm a skeptic of all high stakes politics which means I'm naturally skeptical of all information we have for and against climate change. I believe the truth is probably somewhere in the middle of both of the extremes.

The current data actually says former climate change models are being outpaced. It's nowhere near the middle. It's not even a political issue. It's turned into a political issue thanks to money, but it's a scientific issue.

To argue it as, well one side must be as right as the other because two (or three or four) sets of politicians argue it, is madness.

Your giving credance to flat earth propaganda is all your doing. Siding with people who know zero about the science at best, and are actually slaves to the lobbies at worst. People who are knowingly sending us to hell. Cause money.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Daradon

The current data actually says former climate change models are being outpaced. It's nowhere near the middle. It's not even a political issue. It's turned into a political issue thanks to money, but it's a scientific issue.

Link?

Just curious. Ever since I tried shrooms I seem to care about this stuff a lot more

[Fuzz]

Interesting article on the problems with the Paris Summit:
https://informthepundits.wordpress.c...hina-syndrome/
excerpt:

Paris has two primary goals:

1. Fashion INDCs into national commitments for reducing global emissions
2. Establish a $100 billion/year Green Climate Fund

The second item is tied to the first. The developed nations are obligated to contribute $100 billion/year into a fund to pay for the climate damages they created. The INDCs of poorer emerging nations include what’s needed to mitigate climate change damages caused by the developed nations’ emissions. Sounds fair enough.
For example, UN-defined developed nations, Greece and Liechtenstein, are obligated to contribute to the $100 billion/year fund. The UN-defined poor emerging nations, China and Saudi Arabia, can draw from that fund to pay for climate change damages.

China and Saudi Arabia, poor???So we will be paying to Saudi Arabia....sounds fair....a country that is determined to ruin our industry.

China, the world’s largest polluter, creates nearly 1/3rd of the world’s greenhouse emissions. China burns half the world’s coal. What China does determines if meaningful emissions reductions can be achieved....

Since 1990 China has increased its greenhouse emission by 305 percent. Just since 2005 China has increased its emissions by 72 percent, according to data from the Global Carbon Project.

Without China committing to meaningful reductions, I've got to ask, why should we destroy our industry AND contribute to a fund that gives money to China and Saudi Arabia?

[Devils'Advocate]

China committing to meaningful reductions:
http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/china...ment-1.2447376

That said, China has 20% of the world population. The standard of living in Canada is higher than in China, partially due to an economy based on a very high per capita CO2 emissions.

Personally, I think a country that has 15.3 tonnes of CO2 per person should be making the first move towards cleaning up their act to show the country that has 5.3 tonnes of CO2 per person that they are serious about fixing the problem.

[Fuzz]

The thing is though, they haven't really committed to much. By 2030, especially if everyone else cuts emissions, they will make up over 40% of global emissions, and yet we should contribute to a fund they can withdraw from?

Yes, we have high emissions per person, but any reductions we make, even if we got down to zero would be a flash in the pan as far as having any affect whatsoever. So if we are trying to win the platitude war, well OK! Bad Canada! Cut down our emissions. But if we actually want to see meaningful global reductions, China and India MUST be at the table doing something meaningful.

Oh, and Saudi Arabia emits more CO2 per capita than Canada, and has not pledged anything at Paris.

[photon]

China is also building nuclear plants like crazy, they're going to double their capacity with what they've got currently under construction and their plans to 2030 and beyond are significant.

[Fuzz]

Does that change this, though? Big image.

Spoiler!

and Canada...

[ernie]

Originally Posted by photon

China is also building nuclear plants like crazy, they're going to double their capacity with what they've got currently under construction and their plans to 2030 and beyond are significant.

Indeed. They have about 26 operating at this time with another 24 under construction. 50+ more are in planning stages.

They are also putting the final touches on there own reactor designs to bring to the world (based on the Westinghouse AP 1000 I believe). And when I say bring to the world what they will be offering is to provide the financing for the build for the area governments. That initial $6 B outlay is quite prohibitive when it comes to building a NPP. To do so means you are not looking for any sort of return for 30+ years. With China financing the reactors they become a heck of a lot more attractive for pretty much every country in the world. Especially the developing nations.

China is also building some Gen IV test reactors. Basically the only country that is truly and actively doing so.

[carbonrod]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

and Canada...
[/SPOILER]

Woa, Is this data right? CO2 dropped under Harper?

[starseed]

Originally Posted by carbonrod

Woa, Is this data right? CO2 dropped under Harper?

Ontario has done a really good job of pulling it's weight on the co2 front.

[Fuzz]

yes.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/does...nomy-1.2794955

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

yes.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/does...nomy-1.2794955

Well even the article states that's a bit of a half-truth. Provincial initiatives have done much more than federal ones.

[Fuzz]

Oh, ya. Didn't mean to give Harper any credit for it, unless you want to credit him with our poor economy that has kept emissions lower than they would have been.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by starseed

Ontario has done a really good job of pulling it's weight on the co2 front.

Yep - Ontario's gone from about 25% coal for energy to closing down all the coal power plants in about 12 years. Energy costs have increased like mad as well though.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Hesla

I went on Twitter last night / today and had some climate change debates. Dumb idea. Here are some snippets.

Good lord. Get me the f*** off this planet.

[carbonrod]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Oh, ya. Didn't mean to give Harper any credit for it, unless you want to credit him with our poor economy that has kept emissions lower than they would have been.

What do you mean by poor economy. From the CBC article above:

Canada's gross domestic product, meanwhile, was $1.4 trillion in 2005 and came in at $1.95 trillion in the second quarter of 2014.

"In 2012, Canada's greenhouse-gas emissions were 5.1 per cent lower than in 2005, while the economy grew by 10.6 per cent during the same period," Environment Canada reported in April.

Does Canada have falling carbon emissions in a growing economy?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/does...nomy-1.2794955

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Yeah, one definitely does not want to give Harper credit for something that happened on his watch just because it happened to occur while he was PM.

Blame, though; that's a different story of course.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Yeah, one definitely does not want to give Harper credit for something that happened on his watch just because it happened to occur while he was PM.

Blame, though; that's a different story of course.

I tend not to give politicians too much credit or blame when it comes to the economy. Sure there are good and disastrous economic policies, but a good chunk of it comes down to luck and timing.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I tend not to give politicians too much credit or blame when it comes to the economy. Sure there are good and disastrous economic policies, but a good chunk of it comes down to luck and timing.

Not to mention most effects are from policies instituted years if not decades earlier. Not many governments stay in power long enough to see the full effects of their policies realized.

As for CO2 emissions, I would be willing to bet that general public perception and awareness is having a bigger impact than anything.