The US megadrought!

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by photon

Next up is the call to build a facility to treat all the fish poop.

The fish have to look after their own environment instead of waiting for our help.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

The fish have to look after their own environment instead of waiting for our help.

We've already given them everything they need in the way of straws and plastic bags, so they can make their own ostomy bags.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Brendone

So if our emissions restrictions are also proven to have zero impact at the global level, we should stop wasting time / money?

Cutting emissions and not dumping waste into the ocean are both the “right thing to do”, but we don’t stop one ‘cause no current impact, and we focus on another ‘cause “we have to do our part” when our part essentially does nothing.

I may be somewhat jaded here, but when I went to New Delhi and experienced that level of pollution, knowing other countries are as bad or worse, it left me extremely sceptical that any effort we make here will change a thing, but we still do, so why ignore other issues like dumping waste? Seems hypocritical.

Why is dumping waste an issue?
Why is stopping raw sewage in the ocean the right thing to do?

I think the short answer would be the oceans current capacity to handle raw sewage in high current deep water areas is probably under utilized on a global scale and could be expanded whereas the atmosphere ability to handle co2 has been exceeded therefore all emitters need to cut.

Bringing in moralization to it is unnecessary.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by GGG

Why is dumping waste an issue?
Why is stopping raw sewage in the ocean the right thing to do?

I think the short answer would be the oceans current capacity to handle raw sewage in high current deep water areas is probably under utilized on a global scale and could be expanded whereas the atmosphere ability to handle co2 has been exceeded therefore all emitters need to cut.

Bringing in moralization to it is unnecessary.

I'm curious why you think that the atmospheric ability to handle CO2 has been exceeded? Records throughout geological time indicate that CO2 levels have been drastically higher than current level. So our atmosphere can still be in balance with more CO2.

[Harry Lime]

I guess what Brendone is saying is that raw sewage pumped out of Victoria doesn't have any effect except possibly on tourism. Globally it's meaningless.

Also, Canadian Co2 emissions are mathematically meaningless on a global level as well and the general uproar on oil and gas production is mostly for aesthetic and political posturing.

Perhaps what we should be concentrating on are the things that are controllable and have a direct and significant impact on us locally. For Canadians, that would be stopping mining close to sources of fresh water feeding our watersheds, such as stopping mining on the Eastern slopes of Alberta. In America it would be stopping the cultivation of almonds in California, which eat up an insane amount of fresh water and are a direct cause of drought downriver.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by GGG

Why is dumping waste an issue?
Why is stopping raw sewage in the ocean the right thing to do?

I think the short answer would be the oceans current capacity to handle raw sewage in high current deep water areas is probably under utilized on a global scale and could be expanded whereas the atmosphere ability to handle co2 has been exceeded therefore all emitters need to cut.

Bringing in moralization to it is unnecessary.

Would it be an issue if every coastal city did that?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Would it be an issue if every coastal city did that?

A good question that I don’t know the answer to. But I did quickly google LA water treatment and it appears starting in 1925 they had contamination issues in the Santa Monica Bay and that drove their sewage treatment even with a 5 mile outflow pipe.

So it appears that a city like LA can’t dump into the ocean without damaging it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype...reatment_plant

I suspect if you look at the history of other cities you would find poor outflow being a leading early reason for stopping the dumping of sewage and not moral issues like it’s wrong.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by photon

Next up is the call to build a facility to treat all the fish poop.

All the fish are either dead, left the area or has 3 eyes.

But damn! those oysters, mussels, scallops are already flavoured!

[photon]

The fish went somewhere where the fish don't poop?

[Brendone]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

I guess what Brendone is saying is that raw sewage pumped out of Victoria doesn't have any effect except possibly on tourism. Globally it's meaningless.

Also, Canadian Co2 emissions are mathematically meaningless on a global level as well and the general uproar on oil and gas production is mostly for aesthetic and political posturing.

Perhaps what we should be concentrating on are the things that are controllable and have a direct and significant impact on us locally. For Canadians, that would be stopping mining close to sources of fresh water feeding our watersheds, such as stopping mining on the Eastern slopes of Alberta. In America it would be stopping the cultivation of almonds in California, which eat up an insane amount of fresh water and are a direct cause of drought downriver.

Exactly. What Canada does, or doesn’t do has essentially no impact on global warming, so it’s all political posturing. Alberta oil sands are not causing BC wild fires or US droughts. I would guess that at our current emission level, or that of 10 years ago, if we were the world’s worst offender, the world would be in good shape. Until the real offenders do something, we’re probably screwed, but we cripple our economy so we can say Canada tried.

We’re saying Mother Nature is good with the sewage we dump, so if it were proven that Mother Nature can manage Canadian emission levels, does that mean we stop trying?

Now if the research is saying all sewage is net zero, or even improves the oceans environment (i.e. Victorian poop has formed a thriving Coral reef that can survive warming ocean temps) then let’s start shipping all our waste to Victoria, minus all of Slivers baby wipes.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

I'm curious why you think that the atmospheric ability to handle CO2 has been exceeded? Records throughout geological time indicate that CO2 levels have been drastically higher than current level. So our atmosphere can still be in balance with more CO2.

With global temperatures 3 degrees warmer and sea levels 15-25m higher.

I don't get why people keep trying to use this argument. Sure it was worse in the past, but it was also a completely different ecosystem.

[GGG]

Nm

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Brendone

Exactly. What Canada does, or doesn’t do has essentially no impact on global warming, so it’s all political posturing. Alberta oil sands are not causing BC wild fires or US droughts. I would guess that at our current emission level, or that of 10 years ago, if we were the world’s worst offender, the world would be in good shape. Until the real offenders do something, we’re probably screwed, but we cripple our economy so we can say Canada tried.

We’re saying Mother Nature is good with the sewage we dump, so if it were proven that Mother Nature can manage Canadian emission levels, does that mean we stop trying?

Now if the research is saying all sewage is net zero, or even improves the oceans environment (i.e. Victorian poop has formed a thriving Coral reef that can survive warming ocean temps) then let’s start shipping all our waste to Victoria, minus all of Slivers baby wipes.

Pumping sewage to Victoria would be prohibitively expensive so I don’t get why would you suggest even if it were beneficial.

We know that Canadian C02 emission create a measurable increase in global CO2 so it is not a comparable to Victoria and sewage which does not create a measurable impact.

And as you carry on this ridiculous argument remember that you are currently arguing that because Victoria fixed their sewer problem we should immediately fix our net zero problem and not build pipelines. You are arguing the anti pipeline side.

[Brendone]

Originally Posted by GGG

And as you carry on this ridiculous argument remember that you are currently arguing that because Victoria fixed their sewer problem we should immediately fix our net zero problem and not build pipelines. You are arguing the anti pipeline side.

As someone else mentioned, why did they spend the money on a treatment plant if it’s always been neutral to dump untreated? Was it just for optics?

More than anything, I’m arguing (poorly) how it can appear hypocritical that two situations, which likely have the same (little to zero) impact on the global situation, get such different attention.

[TheIronMaiden]

It is pretty disheartening when discussions about climate issues revolve around blaming other people over taking personal accountability.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by belsarius

With global temperatures 3 degrees warmer and sea levels 15-25m higher.

I don't get why people keep trying to use this argument. Sure it was worse in the past, but it was also a completely different ecosystem.

We have a pretty narrow viewpoint for CO2 records and we have a biased interpretation of what levels should be because of self preservation. On the bigger scale saying that the atmosphere's ability to handle CO2 has been exceeded is false.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Brendone

As someone else mentioned, why did they spend the money on a treatment plant if it’s always been neutral to dump untreated? Was it just for optics?

More than anything, I’m arguing (poorly) how it can appear hypocritical that two situations, which likely have the same (little to zero) impact on the global situation, get such different attention.

Yes as ridiculous as it sounds it was built for international relations and optics.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

We have a pretty narrow viewpoint for CO2 records and we have a biased interpretation of what levels should be because of self preservation. On the bigger scale saying that the atmosphere's ability to handle CO2 has been exceeded is false.

This is a fair statement. I should have added that the atmosphere’s ability to handle CO2 and provide a climate with risks and costs acceptable to the majority of humanity has been exceeded.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by GGG

This is a fair statement. I should have added that the atmosphere’s ability to handle CO2 and provide a climate with risks and costs acceptable to the majority of humanity has been exceeded.

The temperatures in some spots in Pakistan and India of late if they sustain and increase are getting closer to a mass death event.

[MoneyGuy]

Thus us why I’ve stopped buying almonds. They require too much water.