David Suzuki compares the oil sands to slavery

[CroFlames]

I found this chart to be interesting. I think most people agree the biggest contributor to climate change is CO2 emissions. Therefore, reducing emissions is the primary environmental goal.

https://www.ec.gc.ca/indicateurs-ind...n&n=F60DB708-1



What I don't understand is how the O&G sector is actually a bigger contributor to emissions than transportation. I always thought that industries that actually burn the fossil fuel (like manufacturing and transportation) contribute significantly more to global emissions more so than the extraction of said fossil fuels. This is of course ignoring other environmental impacts like habitat loss for wildlife during O&G development. The source for the chart should be non-partisan it's from the environment Canada website.

Anyone care to explain further?

[DFO]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Anyone care to explain further?

The bulk of O&G emissions are from burning natural gas for steam generation in the Athabasca operations.

[Shazam]

The proportions represent only Canada.

The world:

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by DFO

The bulk of O&G emissions are from burning natural gas for steam generation in the Athabasca operations.

That much Co2 is generated from that operation alone?

Originally Posted by Shazam

The proportions represent only Canada.

The world:

Canada can only control/legislate within it's own borders, so that's why I brought it up. I was surprised to see how much the O&G industry is a contributor to emissions.

[Shazam]

Oh, okay. When you wrote "global emissions" I was thinking you were extrapolating to the entire world.

And yes, tons and tons of NG is used for oilsands extraction.

Approximately 48 per cent of Alberta’s natural gas production is consumed here in Alberta. Alberta's residential and commercial sectors account for 17 per cent of the province's marketable natural gas consumed in Alberta for home and business heating. The remaining 83 per cent of natural gas consumed in Alberta is used by the industrial, electricity generation, transportation, and other sectors. Natural gas is also an important raw material for the province’s oil sands and electric power generation industries.

So yeah... Your piddly home furnace is rather immaterial to the whole discussion.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by T@T

Talk about dense get with the program man, read-understand-post. in that order

I'm not saying Alberta wouldn't be great farmland, I'm saying without O&G Alberta will crumble economically, or do you think farming can support over 4 million people?

Well with OH&S moving into the farming industry maybe there's some jobs to be made there?

But hey, we have been told that by instituting a carbon tax, forcing companies to move away from O&G that it will promote investment into green technology. So I guess after we decimate the O&G sector, there will tons of work laying around for those people who lost their jobs by bankrupt energy companies who will be reinvesting into green technology.

Right? That's the story we are being told anyways.

The agriculture industry built this province. So while compete devastation in the O&G sector would hurt and force people out of province, the backbone of the province will still be here.

More than anything I'm just happy I can pay higher taxes on energy, so that Mother Nature can quit taking such a beating. More cash in the govt coffers certainly helps the environment. And yes I'm being overly sarcastic.

[CroFlames]

When nuclear power plants and electric cars, planes and trucks are commonplace, they can seriously talk about slowing and reversing climate change.

[Fuzz]

http://www.carbonzero.ca/calculate

I just did a quick run at this, our household is 8.5 Tonnes CO2 for 2 people. The biggest part of the was a flight to Europe. Everything else is pretty small.

[CaptainCrunch]

I don't know how accurate this is, I came to 1 ton

I consume about 516 kwh based on my monthly power bill

My apartment is heated electrically, utilities like water and sewer are included, because I'm in a down stairs suite, my power bill is $40.00 a month at its highpoint

I maybe drive 800 km's in a month with my jeep and that's probably a little high

I had one flight to Vancouver this year

I haven't taken transit this year.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I don't know how accurate this is, I came to 1 ton

I consume about 516 kwh based on my monthly power bill

My apartment is heated electrically, utilities like water and sewer are included, because I'm in a down stairs suite, my power bill is $40.00 a month at its highpoint

I maybe drive 800 km's in a month with my jeep and that's probably a little high

I had one flight to Vancouver this year

I haven't taken transit this year.

Mr Suzuki could learn a thing or two from you.

I'm curious to find my estimated contribution too. I'm definitely going to do that later.

[Nobama]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

When nuclear power plants and electric cars, planes and trucks are commonplace, they can seriously talk about slowing and reversing climate change.

Ha! Tell that to the people who live in Belarus and Japan. You can't tell anyone in Chernobyl because, well there is no one left there.

[Nobama]

This truly says it all. Wake up people.

http://youtu.be/silfiTY32xo

[sharkov]

next the oil sands will be compared to the Nazis and ISIS

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by Nobama

This truly says it all. Wake up people.

http://youtu.be/silfiTY32xo

Now this is what is frustrating to me.

Scientists, on one hand tell us that solar flares have more to do with our climate than anything else. The ice caps are growing, temperature changes have been nil for 20+ years.

Scientists, on the other hand, tell us the ice caps are melting. The average temperature of the planet has risen significantly in the last x number of years.

On the news tonight Tara Nelson parlays a nice little story on the ever shrinking ice caps, as dictated by scientists, into a story on the climate conference in Paris.

Whatever is happening, all I know is it's gonna take a big ol pile of cash to prove our morality and make it right with the planet.

[Canuck-Hater]

Infowars.com hmmm..... yeah thats probably not a credible source. Its those nut bars that need to "wake up" and come back to reality IMO.

[blueski]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Oh, okay. When you wrote "global emissions" I was thinking you were extrapolating to the entire world.

And yes, tons and tons of NG is used for oilsands extraction.



So yeah... Your piddly home furnace is rather immaterial to the whole discussion.

But at least the NDP will still tax the snot out of it.

[blueski]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I don't know how accurate this is, I came to 1 ton

I consume about 516 kwh based on my monthly power bill

My apartment is heated electrically, utilities like water and sewer are included, because I'm in a down stairs suite, my power bill is $40.00 a month at its highpoint

I maybe drive 800 km's in a month with my jeep and that's probably a little high

I had one flight to Vancouver this year

I haven't taken transit this year.

I probably triple what you spew out but when I was younger I planted 900,000 trees. Each tree absorbs 13 pounds a year. In total that's about 5300 tonnes absorbed a year. Beat that Dave!

[T@T]

Originally Posted by blueski

I probably triple what you spew out but when I was younger I planted 900,000 trees. Each tree absorbs 13 pounds a year. In total that's about 5300 tonnes absorbed a year. Beat that Dave!

I planted trees in my younger days as well, spent 6 days of my life for zero dollars doing my thing in the name of green. I even got the knack of it and could do about 5-6 trees a minute by myself.

I commend you big time, 900k would have took me about a year if I planted 12 hours a day

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Nobama

Ha! Tell that to the people who live in Belarus and Japan. You can't tell anyone in Chernobyl because, well there is no one left there.

Like I said, if they are serious about reducing/eliminating carbon emissions, nuclear power is the realistic short term option.

Once the entire world is running on electricity generated by nuclear, solar, wind & hydro, then they can think of new ways of eliminating nuclear power.

If they don't switch to nuclear power right now, the change from fossil fuels to alternative energy sources will be far too slow and therefore detrimental to the planet.

Again, if they are serious.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Like I said, if they are serious about reducing/eliminating carbon emissions, nuclear power is the realistic short term option.

Once the entire world is running on electricity generated by nuclear, solar, wind & hydro, then they can think of new ways of eliminating nuclear power.

If they don't switch to nuclear power right now, the change from fossil fuels to alternative energy sources will be far too slow and therefore detrimental to the planet.

Again, if they are serious.

A wee bit cost prohibitive. Particularly if you are planning to open it and then close it in a relatively short period of time. These things cost boatloads of money to create and then another boatload to decommission it when you don't need it anymore. You'd also never earn enough money to pay for the thing if you didn't have it open for a long period of time.

And there are also a ton of areas when you just don't want to put these things - areas prone to natural disasters.