Alberta Politics Thread

[LanceUppercut]

If you believe that fossil fuels are going to become extinct in 20-30 years, then we should be extracting as much of it out of the ground as fast as humanly possible. Who in their right mind would leave a valuable resource people want to buy in the ground out of altruism especially if you expect that resource to be worthless in the medium to long term?

Don't try and argue "climate change" either, extracting our oil will do nothing to change China's, India's or even the US's climate policies. Make the money now and maybe you can use it to fuel progressive fantasies. Who am I kidding, it is going to go to fat public service benefits.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by LanceUppercut

If you believe that fossil fuels are going to become extinct in 20-30 years, then we should be extracting as much of it out of the ground as fast as humanly possible. Who in their right mind would leave a valuable resource people want to buy in the ground out of altruism especially if you expect that resource to be worthless in the medium to long term?

Don't try and argue "climate change" either, extracting our oil will do nothing to change China's, India's or even the US's climate policies. Make the money now and maybe you can use it to fuel progressive fantasies. Who am I kidding, it is going to go to fat public service benefits.

Fat public service benefits is the ultimate progressive fantasy when the day finally comes that we all work for the government, comrade.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by LanceUppercut

If you believe that fossil fuels are going to become extinct in 20-30 years, then we should be extracting as much of it out of the ground as fast as humanly possible. Who in their right mind would leave a valuable resource people want to buy in the ground out of altruism especially if you expect that resource to be worthless in the medium to long term?

Remember in Independence day when the aliens said they move from planet to planet, raping and pillaging the natural resources and earth was next? Yeah you're them.

[CaptainCrunch]

so you're saying if he invests in a proper firewall and anti-virus software that we're all screwed?

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Remember in Independence day when the aliens said they move from planet to planet, raping and pillaging the natural resources and earth was next? Yeah you're them.

Hyperbole much?

[Ozy_Flame]

Lol

[Tinordi]

The idea that China isn't doing anything to combat climate change is so laughably ignorant that it, oh nevermind...

The walls of this echo chamber are pretty thick. Resume your unhinged ranting.

[Fuzz]

What are they doing? Business as usual until 2030, then maybe they will consider something.

They don't give a rats arse about CO2. The only reason we may see any improvement out of China is because they are literally choking to death.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

What are they doing? Business as usual until 2030, then maybe they will consider something.

They don't give a rats arse about CO2. The only reason we may see any improvement out of China is because they are literally choking to death.

What aren't they doing is the better question.

Ok how about this, you go Google "China actions to reduce GHG emissions" and tell me what you find.

[Robbob]

China has said a bunch of things, but it is hard to take them seriously when they constantly under report emissions.

[Fuzz]

Hooo boy, is the the road you want to travel? Lets see...first link so I'm not being selective:

On 30 June 2015, China submitted its Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC), including the target to peak CO2 emissions by 2030 at the latest, lower the carbon intensity of GDP by 60% to 65% below 2005 levels by 2030, increase the share of non-fossil energy carriers of the total primary energy supply to around 20% by that time, and increase its forest stock volume by 4.5 billion cubic metres, compared to 2005 levels.



The emission levels estimated for 2025 and 2030 resulting from all aspects of the INDC, except the carbon intensity target, we rate medium. However, the emissions resulting from the 2030 carbon intensity targets if taken in isolation are significantly higher and would be rated as “Inadequate.” Based on our analysis, the weak INDC carbon intensity targets, if taken literally, would only be reached at the expense of important national policies and actions, including in relation to reduced air pollution. This appears unlikely in our judgment. Consequently we give a hybrid rating " Medium with inadequate carbon intensity targets”.
This means China’s INDC (and its national actions) are not consistent with limiting warming to below 2°C unless other countries make much deeper reductions and comparably greater effort than China.

http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china.html

So peak by 2030, that includes increasing until then. And a reduction in intensities, which is going to happen through efficiency anyway.

Looking at the chart, you can see their intensity targets are higher than their current policy projections. So the intensity targets are really "doing nothing". You can also see they go fro 11 000 to 15 000 by 2030. Lets look at Canada. Ours go from 700 to 800, with our pledges at about 625.

Now, math wizard, you tell me who's polices are going to result in more CO2 in the atmosphere? Who's pledges result an an increase in CO2 and who's are a decrease? Who is doing something, and who is doing nothing?

Or did I just click the wrong link after doing your search?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

[PsYcNeT]

[Tinordi]

China is leading the world in renewable energy deployment, energy efficiency investment, public transit investment.

It's all well documented. You've chosen to look at their INDC submission which is no better or no worse than any other country. Look at what they're really doing.

[Fuzz]

It doesn't matter what they are rolling out in renewables if their emissions are on track to increase 36%, 40 times greater than Canada's increase. It's basic math. That is, if the goal is really to limit CO2 emmisions.

Oh, and I didn't "choose" to look at anything. I did your suggested search and clicked the first link.

[Tinordi]

They aren't though. There's lots of legitimate discussion that their emissions have already peaked. The IEA came out last year saying that global GHG emissions did not grow for the first time in decades. The reason? Chinese coal use is down. That one action, to shutter inefficient coal plants and invest in renewable power stalled global emissions growth. To say they haven't done anything is simply specious baseless nonsense.

[username]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It doesn't matter what they are rolling out in renewables if their emissions are on track to increase 36%, 40 times greater than Canada's increase. It's basic math. That is, if the goal is really to limit CO2 emmisions.

Oh, and I didn't "choose" to look at anything. I did your suggested search and clicked the first link.

Basic math is hard when you're blinded by ideology.....just ask our provincial govt.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I think we could change the wording to "You need people like me so that you can point your f%%%in fingers and say "Kids, that's what incompetence looks like"

[nik-]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

At least Scarface had some success.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

They aren't though. There's lots of legitimate discussion that their emissions have already peaked. The IEA came out last year saying that global GHG emissions did not grow for the first time in decades. The reason? Chinese coal use is down. That one action, to shutter inefficient coal plants and invest in renewable power stalled global emissions growth. To say they haven't done anything is simply specious baseless nonsense.

Lots of good stuff in this article on that...

But determining if China’s carbon emissions have peaked and are declining is difficult. Scientists measure emissions by extrapolating from official energy data and can provide only rough estimates for emissions from individual countries. Conclusions about whether a country’s emissions have peaked are definitive only in hindsight, years after the fact. Even then, economic changes could result years later in a resurgence in emissions.
Problems with the accuracy of Chinese data make figuring out what is happening here particularly challenging. A paper published late last month by the journal Nature Climate Change warned that preliminary energy statistics from China were unreliable, and that “the most easily available data is often insufficient for estimating emissions.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/wo...ions.html?_r=0