Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5 - Page 128 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

PsYcNeT · 10-06-2022, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

mgtow, GTFO! And an endorsement from David Staples (E=NG!)

https://twitter.com/user/status/1578103232597004293

MGTOW is just one of the possible evolutions that the Incel can mature into!

Incel is like a larval or Bulbasaur stage.

Firebot · 10-06-2022, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by b1crunch

So in your view there's a 'hidden agenda' by the government to favour wood pellet production and burning over oil and gas production? So, governments are labeling wood pellet production and burning as 'green' because they have some vested interest in doing it, but these same governments lie and/or deceive about practises in the oil and gas industry? And you're suggesting that these governments don't support wood pellet burning because it is supposedly 'green' but for other (unspecified) nefarious reasons? Do I understand you correctly?

https://www.canadianbiomassmagazine....arbon-economy/

What I noticed of interest is at the bottom of the page : Funded by the Government of Canada

I don't believe that the Government of Canada normally funds oil sands or oil production websites or encourages pro oil production. We all know how Canadian Energy Center is funded by the UCP and government of Alberta, but considering that wood pellets have higher carbon emissions then coal, isn't a graphic like this extremely misleading when it's accounting for CO2 being reabsorbed by newly planted trees?

CO2 emissions are CO2 emissions, there is no such thing as 'green' CO2 emission. It doesn't matter if the CO2 emissions come from a tree or a coal, in the atmosphere it is all treated the same, and it is all absorbed from the same trees with CO2 sequestration.

More trees planted = better absorption, but that is separate from the actual act of burning wood pellets or coal. Oil companies plants trees year round.

https://syncrude.ca/2020/08/26/11-mi...yncrude-sites/

Meanwhile planting trees is a Liberal campaign promise and one that is barely outpacing private companies efforts.

Yes, if the government of Canada is promoting wood pellets as 'green' and funding and encouraging its use and funding misleading statistics, it most certainly does look like the government has a bias not embedded in science and favouring one industry over another.

Firebot · 10-06-2022, 03:46 PM

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/climate-chan...els-fund/23734

https://www.canada.ca/en/services/en...y-economy.html

There's nothing clean about wood pellets burning yet is being promoted by the Liberal government (while lobbied by the wood pellet association / the foresting industry) as a methods of fighting climate change.

Quote:

The Canadian forest sector is working to advance Canada’s bioeconomy and create jobs while fighting climate change. For example, Granule 777 Inc., in Quebec, is building the first fully integrated industrial wood pellet and sawmill complex in Canada. The Government of Canada has invested $20 million in the project to enable the company to build the complex and acquire strategic and innovative production equipment. The new complex will generate wood pellets and biomass which can replace fossil fuels and lower emissions, while creating new jobs and diversifying the mill’s product base.

Absolutely dishonest and misleading.

If you say green and clean energy enough times and have nice diagrams in green, it makes it so apparently. Coal industry needs to start painting their coal green and get with the program so it can brand itself as clean fuel.

#-3 · 10-06-2022, 03:53 PM

You keep telling yourself others are the bias ones.

The Earth as a singular biosphere has a limit to the amount of carbon based biology it can carry, and after billions of years it is pretty much at and sustaining that limit, if you cut a tree down to burn a new one will grow in it's place. If you dig coal up to burn, there is no active mechanism to re-burry itself.

Nobody is claiming it is the perfect fuel or the perfect solution... But to compare it to coal because of source emissions while ignoring where the CO2 originated from in the first place, is basically just willfully and deliberately muddying the waters.

aaronck · 10-06-2022, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

mgtow, GTFO! And an endorsement from David Staples (E=NG!)

https://twitter.com/user/status/1578103232597004293

Staples actually deleted the Tweet- It was that bad

opendoor · 10-06-2022, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Firebot

CO2 emissions are CO2 emissions, there is no such thing as 'green' CO2 emission. It doesn't matter if the CO2 emissions come from a tree or a coal, in the atmosphere it is all treated the same, and it is all absorbed from the same trees with CO2 sequestration.

But it depends on the source of the wood. If they're using waste wood from commercial logging operations like this, this, or this (all those pictures are from BC), then it's a very different scenario than fossil fuels. If that wood would otherwise be burnt (to prevent fuel for forest fires) or left to rot, then the CO2 is getting released one way or another as a byproduct of harvesting the wood. So it's not a question of emitting CO2 or not; it's a question of do we get some benefit out of those emissions and use them to replace other emissions?

Flames0910 · 10-06-2022, 10:07 PM

Quote:

I don't believe that the Government of Canada normally funds oil sands or oil production websites or encourages pro oil production.

Huh?

You're kidding right? The oil sands wouldn't exist without government subsidies.

https://mobile.twitter.com/theturner...77130956292096
https://www.simonandschuster.com/boo.../9781501115103
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/foss...iner-1.6371411

FlamesAddiction · 10-06-2022, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/other...0bf1be8b94b372

Pierre doing what you would expect from someone like him.

He apparently also had hidden tags that said "Ben Shapiro" for his videos.

https://data.gripe/pierre-poilievre-youtube-tags/

Azure · 10-07-2022, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by opendoor

But it depends on the source of the wood. If they're using waste wood from commercial logging operations like this, this, or this (all those pictures are from BC), then it's a very different scenario than fossil fuels. If that wood would otherwise be burnt (to prevent fuel for forest fires) or left to rot, then the CO2 is getting released one way or another as a byproduct of harvesting the wood. So it's not a question of emitting CO2 or not; it's a question of do we get some benefit out of those emissions and use them to replace other emissions?

You are right, and you can add if logging companies replant equal or more amount of trees, which many do, then it does make sense.

The issue however is related to the fact that BBC & others have done some research and discovered that the logging companies are lying out of their ass, and also that in the US, a lot of slow growth forest is being cut down.

DoubleK · 10-07-2022, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azure

The issue however is related to the fact that BBC & others have done some research and discovered that the logging companies are lying out of their ass, and also that in the US, a lot of slow growth forest is being cut down.

What exactly is slow growth forest?

redforever · 10-08-2022, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoubleK

What exactly is slow growth forest?

Spruce, pine and the like. Fast grow is poplar and the like, which quite often overtakes and smothers out the seedling spruce or pine that was replanted.

DoubleK · 10-08-2022, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redforever

Spruce, pine and the like. Fast grow is poplar and the like, which quite often overtakes and smothers out the seedling spruce or pine that was replanted.

I have a forestry degree...