View Poll Results: What role do humans play in contributing to climate change?
|
Humans are the primary contributor to climate change
|
|
395 |
63.00% |
Humans contribute to climate change, but not the main cause
|
|
164 |
26.16% |
Not sure
|
|
37 |
5.90% |
Climate change is a hoax
|
|
31 |
4.94% |
10-07-2019, 09:06 AM
|
#1401
|
In the Sin Bin
|
They are basically the climate change equivalent of those anti-abortion loonies who drive the aborted fetus truck.
Their methods will convince exactly zero people, and instead only foster resentment against them.
|
|
|
10-07-2019, 09:07 AM
|
#1402
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Mckenzie Towne
|
I would absolutely lose my mind...I just saw a couple videos on it. I would probably go full crazy.
|
|
|
10-07-2019, 09:41 AM
|
#1403
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weitz
I suspect this isn't the best way to gain traction for your cause. Inconveniencing the average person who is trying to get to work isn't going to help you.
|
You are so right, and yet it happens time and time and time again. The methods don't seem to work, but they sure like to use them.
Though, I suppose, the goal is "news coverage" and not "new recruits"...I guess it works that way.
|
|
|
10-07-2019, 09:43 AM
|
#1404
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Income Tax Central
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteTiger
You are so right, and yet it happens time and time and time again. The methods don't seem to work, but they sure like to use them.
Though, I suppose, the goal is "news coverage" and not "new recruits"...I guess it works that way.
|
"Climate Change and Human Responsibility."
Maybe we need fewer humans? Who do we get rid of?
Well...through this action I think a large group just identified themselves as useless, perhaps we should start with them?
__________________
The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a Fire Exit. - Mitch Hedberg
|
|
|
10-07-2019, 01:07 PM
|
#1405
|
Franchise Player
|
It's nice that in the US they are promoting planting trees in order to stabilize climate change instead of just adding a carbon tax.
|
|
|
10-07-2019, 01:17 PM
|
#1406
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalgaryFan1988
It's nice that in the US they are promoting planting trees in order to stabilize climate change instead of just adding a carbon tax.
|
And that is pretty much copping out on putting in place a real solution and kicking the can further down the road. You can only plant so many trees on an acre. The soil and watershed can only support so many plants. Then there are areas where trees are not meant to grow. The idea of planting trees is a wonderful idea in principle, until you start looking at the ecological impact of such a plan. While it is better than nothing, larger more comprehensive plans need to be developed and implemented as soon as possible. The time for kicking cans down the road was so 1970s.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
|
|
10-07-2019, 04:07 PM
|
#1407
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
And that is pretty much copping out on putting in place a real solution and kicking the can further down the road. You can only plant so many trees on an acre. The soil and watershed can only support so many plants. Then there are areas where trees are not meant to grow. The idea of planting trees is a wonderful idea in principle, until you start looking at the ecological impact of such a plan. While it is better than nothing, larger more comprehensive plans need to be developed and implemented as soon as possible. The time for kicking cans down the road was so 1970s.
|
I agree with you, but it's still better than simply implementing a carbon tax.
|
|
|
10-07-2019, 04:42 PM
|
#1408
|
Pent-up
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Plutanamo Bay.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalgaryFan1988
I agree with you, but it's still better than simply implementing a carbon tax.
|
Where do they get the additional funding for such a project?
|
|
|
10-07-2019, 10:14 PM
|
#1409
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers
Where do they get the additional funding for such a project?
|
General tax revenue.
Green projects shouldn’t be funded with green taxes. A project is worth doing or not based on its expected outcome.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
|
|
10-08-2019, 02:28 AM
|
#1410
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Normally, my desk
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
And that is pretty much copping out on putting in place a real solution and kicking the can further down the road. You can only plant so many trees on an acre. The soil and watershed can only support so many plants. Then there are areas where trees are not meant to grow. The idea of planting trees is a wonderful idea in principle, until you start looking at the ecological impact of such a plan. While it is better than nothing, larger more comprehensive plans need to be developed and implemented as soon as possible. The time for kicking cans down the road was so 1970s.
|
https://www.technologyreview.com/f/6...bon-emissions/
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...nopy-emissions
It's more than just kicking a can down the road and is not copping out. Sure, "larger, more comprehensive plans" would be great. But, why not start with a simple chapter 1 of said plan.
Posted this before, but demonstrates viability of actually implementing the start of a "comprehensive plan";
https://interestingengineering.com/e...lanting-record
|
|
|
10-08-2019, 09:28 AM
|
#1411
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeman4Gilmour
|
This has already been debunked. I wish people would stop bringing it up because it is one of the dumbest ideas ever thrust upon the debate. This was a model by MIT that projected how many trees would have to be planted to act as a carbon sink to absorb the carbon we have been injecting into the atmosphere. Even the author has said it is all for not if we don't also cut emissions.
Crowther's projections were we would need to plant 1.4 trillion trees, which about 1/3 of the trees already in existence. This is virtually impossible and could have dire effects on biomes and their sustainability and possibly make the situation of warming worse.
https://www.llnl.gov/news/models-sho...global-warming
https://www.sciencefocus.com/planet-...limate-change/
You can't just arbitrarily plant trees and think they will not have negative ramifications. There are only so many nutrients and only so much water in the watershed. When you increase the number of plants it taxes the soil and creates an unhealthy environment for plant survival. By packing in more trees you create competition and the strongest plants will survive. Others will die off and create the blanket of debris that creates the conditions for uncontrollable wild fires. Sustainability of the plants is the most important thing, and the concept suggested does not take that into consideration.
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm
What people don't understand is that the environment can only handle so many plants and trees in an area. Then there is the conditions in which the plants are going to grow. We are thinking in present terms, not future terms. What does the future condition look like and will plants be able to grow in those conditions, or will they require more nutrients and water to do so. Studies show that future conditions - increased temperatures - will make it more difficult for plants to survive and competition for resources will be even greater.
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/ea...34113.full.pdf
The same problems affect food crops that we rely upon.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...1111/gcb.12069
While we may think that planting trees is a great idea it is going to do more harm to the fragile ecosystems we rely upon to survive. Couple that with the fact that it takes a tree over a decade to mature to the point where it starts acting as a carbon sink and you have even greater challenges. Environmental conditions continue to degrade as temperatures rise, making it more difficult for plants to survive. Without proper management of the plants and increases in the resources needed to sustain them, we are actually doing greater damage than good.
http://le.uwpress.org/content/78/4/559.full.pdf
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/cou...climate-change
"Other scientists question not only the practicality of the study's claims, but also the study's very methodology. "Many of the allegedly available restoration areas are clearly unsuitable for more trees than they currently support. If you look closely at the map, a large proportion of these areas are in regions where soils are permanently frozen," says Eike Luedeling, a climate change researcher and professor of horticultural sciences at the University of Bonn.
"The methodology implicitly (probably not on purpose) implies that carbon stock is proportional to canopy cover, i.e. ecosystems without trees contain no carbon. This is clearly false and strongly inflates the global estimate [of restoration]."
Jan Börner, Luedeling's colleague and a professor for economics of sustainable land use at the University of Bonn, is similarly skeptical. Börner says that some areas being proposed for restoration under the current study are already in use for other purposes. Börner considers the study to be an "interesting academic exercise ... but as a [climate change] mitigation strategy proposal (and it is being advertised as such), it sends a misleading signal to the international climate policy debate."
It is not a practical solution.
Quote:
It's more than just kicking a can down the road and is not copping out. Sure, "larger, more comprehensive plans" would be great. But, why not start with a simple chapter 1 of said plan.
|
Because its an idea a kindergarten kid would propose. On surface, yeah, it kind of makes some sense. But when you actually start looking into the idea and what the ramifications are, its an incredibly short sighted and not well thought out plan. These are complex problems that require complex solutions, and pinning the hopes of the planet on an idea a four year old would suggest is flat out scary.
Wonderful. They planted all of those trees. Now, how many of those trees will survive and mature to the point of making a difference? The biome they were planted in is grassland. How many resources will they eat up that will cause damage to the biome? Will they be sustainable? It's one thing to put a plant in the ground, its another bringing it to maturity. This will be a great exercise to observe. I hope the media circles back in one year, three years, and five years to see how well this new "forest" is doing and if it survives. Considering the conditions that Ethiopia finds itself, I'm skeptical.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
|
|
10-08-2019, 09:55 AM
|
#1412
|
Posted the 6 millionth post!
|
Thought this was a relevant article to share. Solar is becoming a potent market in Alberta, and some of the energy driven from solar is partnering with our O/G sector, such as TC Energy.
Solar power is the red-hot growth area in oil-rich Alberta
CALGARY — Solar power is beating expectations in oil and gas rich Alberta, where the renewable energy source is poised to expand dramatically in the coming years as international power companies invest in the province.
Fresh capital is being deployed in the Alberta’s electricity generation sector for both renewable and natural gas-fired power projects after years of uncertainty caused by changes and reversals in the province’s power market, said Duane Reid-Carlson, president of power consulting firm EDC Associates, who advises on electric projects in the province.
“From the mix of projects that we see in the queue at the (Alberta Electric System Operator) and the projects that have been announced, Alberta has no shortage of thermal and renewable projects,” Reid-Carlson said, adding that he sees “a great mix” of independent power companies and foreign firms looking to build renewable projects in Alberta.
|
|
|
10-08-2019, 10:04 AM
|
#1413
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: May 2016
Location: ATCO Field, Section 201
|
It would be interesting to see how much has changed in terms of percentages since 2017.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
|
|
10-08-2019, 11:36 AM
|
#1415
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: May 2016
Location: ATCO Field, Section 201
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
|
That is super cool! Thanks!
|
|
|
10-08-2019, 05:07 PM
|
#1416
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Calgary
|
I’m sooo not a George Carlin fan but,
George Carlin on climate change (nsfw - a swear)
https://youtu.be/ko3w02ycBwI
|
|
|
10-08-2019, 05:14 PM
|
#1417
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Victoria
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by stampsx2
|
I am a Carlin fan, but I think I'll take the word of climate scientists who've spent decades learning and working in this field over that of a comedian's. Crazy idea, I know.
|
|
|
10-08-2019, 05:17 PM
|
#1418
|
Pent-up
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Plutanamo Bay.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by stampsx2
|
Maybe listen to the whole bit. His underlying tone isn’t what you think it is. He ends it by saying we are all done for, and that...
“We won’t leave a trace either, thank god for that”
|
|
|
10-08-2019, 06:08 PM
|
#1419
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
I am a Carlin fan, but I think I'll take the word of climate scientists who've spent decades learning and working in this field over that of a comedian's. Crazy idea, I know.
|
You'd take a climate scientists prediction of the future over someone who's actually from the future?
|
|
|
10-08-2019, 07:00 PM
|
#1420
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
I am a Carlin fan, but I think I'll take the word of climate scientists who've spent decades learning and working in this field over that of a comedian's. Crazy idea, I know.
|
I believe in scientific facts but not environmental alarmism or climate change fanatisicm. Carlin has about as much credibility as a climate change alarmist. Both take it to the extreme.
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:57 AM.
|
|