The point is that everyone needs to stop or cut significantly. Yes, other nations are much larger contributors, but it doesn't matter. Why do we have to wait for them to do something before we do our part, however small it may be?
I don't think Canada can cut emissions in half, that's why. Too big of a county, too sparsely populated, too cold.
Manufacturing and resource development are the biggest contributors. If that business is cut in half, what would be left?
I don't think Canada can cut emissions in half, that's why. Too big of a county, too sparsely populated, too cold.
Manufacturing and resource development are the biggest contributors. If that business is cut in half, what would be left?
We have to find better, cleaner ways of doing these things. Don't know enough about manufacturing to really say what can be cleaned up, and it all likelyhood we're going to have to wean out our fossil fuel dependency in general. These questions are not unique to Canada, but they are ones that everyone will have to face eventually.
So, what would be left? Well those (and many other) industries will have to change significantly, as well as people's overall attitudes and habits. But Earth might be left. So I'd say that's pretty significant.
We have to find better, cleaner ways of doing these things. Don't know enough about manufacturing to really say what can be cleaned up, and it all likelyhood we're going to have to wean out our fossil fuel dependency in general. These questions are not unique to Canada, but they are ones that everyone will have to face eventually.
So, what would be left? Well those (and many other) industries will have to change significantly, as well as people's overall attitudes and habits. But Earth might be left. So I'd say that's pretty significant.
Something obviously needs to happen, both in Canada and globally. How could a country like Canada slash emissions? Serious question.
Non polluting sources of energy need to be readily available to manufacturers, and many manufacturing processes themselves need to be re-invented since they produce emissions. I honestly see global catastrophic climate change happening, and STILL people will continue to pollute.
Something obviously needs to happen, both in Canada and globally. How could a country like Canada slash emissions? Serious question.
Non polluting sources of energy need to be readily available to manufacturers, and many manufacturing processes themselves need to be re-invented since they produce emissions. I honestly see global catastrophic climate change happening, and STILL people will continue to pollute.
The only way a nation like Canada can slash emissions in any significant way IMO is to completely move away from fossil fuels both as an export and as a fuel in general. There's really no way to sugar coat it. Many people that live here and work in the industry don't like hearing it, but I think even most of them will admit that it needs to change in a big way for the sake of long term sustainability. Putting a tax on carbon is nice and all, but it really does sweet dick all to limit emissions in any way. Money is an invisible force we created, but the oil is still burning.
This would really only happen if the world moves that way in general, and I think sentiment here is that, while were not a huge consumer of oil or producer of emissions purely due to our size, we are a significant producer/exporter of the oil and so we do bear some of the responsibility for it's use. And thus, oil producing countries like Canada are the ones that need to take the lead on this, as counter-intuitive as that may be. Otherwise were going to be crying sad panda when everyone else stops (or significantly cuts) using our main resource because there are now alternatives, when we could have gotten ahead of it.
Nuclear is the only fuel I can see allowing us to maintain our way of life and be clean. Until people start having the nuclear conversation and stop treating it as a boogeyman, then all that's happening is gap fillers, not replacements.
Nuclear is the only fuel I can see allowing us to maintain our way of life and be clean. Until people start having the nuclear conversation and stop treating it as a boogeyman, then all that's happening is gap fillers, not replacements.
I actually agree with this statement.
If Canada is the leader in slashing emissions drastically, it'll be hard to sell to Canadians unless the quality of life is somewhat constant.
If Canada aggressively slashed emissions, and quality of life took a serious slide while globally emissions remain the same, Canadians would be left out in the cold (literally) and there would be no difference to the global problem. Catastrophe would still be imminent.
The global extent and distribution of forest trees is central to our understanding of the terrestrial biosphere. We provide the first spatially continuous map of forest tree density at a global scale. This map reveals that the global number of trees is approximately 3.04 trillion, an order of magnitude higher than the previous estimate. Of these trees, approximately 1.39 trillion exist in tropical and subtropical forests, with 0.74 trillion in boreal regions and 0.61 trillion in temperate regions. Biome-level trends in tree density demonstrate the importance of climate and topography in controlling local tree densities at finer scales, as well as the overwhelming effect of humans across most of the world. Based on our projected tree densities, we estimate that over 15 billion trees are cut down each year, and the global number of trees has fallen by approximately 46% since the start of human civilization.
Not enough to slow or reverse the climate problem.
I think I read somewhere (may have been in this thread actually) that the damage is done. As of 2009 it was considered irreversible. We can only slow down our impending doom at this point. Kind of depressing.
Nuclear is the only fuel I can see allowing us to maintain our way of life and be clean. Until people start having the nuclear conversation and stop treating it as a boogeyman, then all that's happening is gap fillers, not replacements.
Nope. Actually one of the most respected and revered members of the scientific community.
Working on getting him to EVE Fanfest next year with CCP games. Bill Nye is quite hard to book these days, Neil degrasse even more so as he was unable to come. These guys speaking fees have skyrocketed last few years, but Bill Nye still seems very grounded and eager to go places to preach his passion for learning, for science, for skepticism and motivating especially young people to be in awe of the natural world.
I can think of very few people who have been such incredible ambassadors to science outside of Carl Sagan and Neil degrasse.
Working on getting him to EVE Fanfest next year with CCP games. Bill Nye is quite hard to book these days, Neil degrasse even more so as he was unable to come. These guys speaking fees have skyrocketed last few years, but Bill Nye still seems very grounded and eager to go places to preach his passion for learning, for science, for skepticism and motivating especially young people to be in awe of the natural world.
I can think of very few people who have been such incredible ambassadors to science outside of Carl Sagan and Neil degrasse.
David Attenborough. He could spend an hour describing how grass grows, and I'd be pinned to the screen.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
Simply going to Ft. McMurray is depressive in itself. It's a oily wasteland. Reclaimed areas are far better environmentally than than the original landscape.
None of which is relevant when we are talking petroleum based carbon emissions and their effect on climate change.
Nuclear is the only fuel I can see allowing us to maintain our way of life and be clean. Until people start having the nuclear conversation and stop treating it as a boogeyman, then all that's happening is gap fillers, not replacements.
maybe we can bury the nuclear waste in the tar sands. #keepalbertaworking
