Do you believe we have agreement on how best to move forward? Do you believe there is nothing to discuss?
No. I’m just using your bad example.
But please let me know how we can wrap up this conversation where the 3-4 of you can feel morally superior for having a feeling everything will be just fine.
I'm not suggesting we don't need to do anything, but we need to be honest about what is being asked to be given up, too.
The entirety of this post was accurate, but for this point I’m of the opinion the answer is a lot.
But it’s been said before, this is pretty much on politicians and industry. Not a lot your average citizen can do but small cut backs here and there. Aside from activism or a career change that is.
We are not going to stop using fossil fuel in 12 years, or even reduce usage by say 30% so we might as well consider the planet doomed.
Ok, I’d still like to see a quote because you’re putting words in her mouth. If she thought we’re doomed why is she wasting her time?
I do agree that we’re not going to put a meaningful dent in our fossil fuel use any time soon. So, is she wrong? Do you have any facts that disprove the IPCC’s statement?
On average in Canada each person uses the energy equivalent of 2800 gallons of crude oil. Most of said energy does in fact come from fossil fuel I would love to hear what we are going to replace that with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DownInFlames
Ok, I’d still like to see a quote because you’re putting words in her mouth. If she thought we’re doomed why is she wasting her time?
Because she is jumping on a bandwagon coherent thought is not being applied.
Quote:
I do agree that we’re not going to put a meaningful dent in our fossil fuel use any time soon. So, is she wrong? Do you have any facts that disprove the IPCC’s statement?
You know I don't. Doesn't make it true, but if it is yes we are all hooped there is no point even trying because as I said we are not going to stop guzzling oil in 12 years.
Last edited by zamler; 09-23-2019 at 06:22 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to zamler For This Useful Post:
On average in Canada each person uses the energy equivalent of 2800 gallons of crude oil. Most of said energy does in fact come from fossil fuel I would love to hear what we are going to replace that with.
You would???
Like, if I had a bunch of climate scientists come up with a few plans, you’d “love” to read them? Somehow I doubt this.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Scroopy Noopers For This Useful Post:
But please let me know how we can wrap up this conversation where the 3-4 of you can feel morally superior for having a feeling everything will be just fine.
First of all, it wasn't my example.
But more importantly, to the bold: there is yet another example of people being steadfastly oblivious to any reasonable middle ground for discussion. I mention discussion, and you jump to the conclusion that I think everything is fine. You have read all the posts, you know I never said anything even remotely close to that.
Let's not even address the 'morally superior' comment.
But more importantly, to the bold: there is yet another example of people being steadfastly oblivious to any reasonable middle ground for discussion. I mention discussion, and you jump to the conclusion that I think everything is fine. You have read all the posts, you know I never said anything even remotely close to that.
Let's not even address the 'morally superior' comment.
Okay so, go. What’s your discussion? That we need to have one? You just keep accusing people of jumping to conclusions, while saying nothing.
Seriously I feel like all the detracting comments in this thread are consistently baseless “yeah well EVERYONE DOES IT!” Or “well what the heck are we gonna do!? This is the only way!”
Lots of ideas out there. Give me something from your side. I’d like to see some “intellect” from Ark on this one.
There are two policies that could make a change RIGHT now.
Exporting our natural gas technology to countries that burn coal. In fact, we could export our natural gas as well. With the cheap price of natural gas, and the simple fact that it burns cleaner with less C02 emissions, a mandate to convert ALL coal plants over to natural gas in 5 years would reduce emissions significantly. Yes, it is an increased timeline, but things aren't going to start changing unless we get serious about this. The US needs to get on board with this too. They have abundant natural gas resources and some of the smartest minds in the world when it comes to the field. Why this isn't priority #1 is beyond me. It is not a middle ground approach either. Even with the increase in wind & solar, and the significant technological advancements being made in both fields to increase efficiency, we are still years away from having world wide adoption which is what really matters. There is little point in the United States having a massively growing wind & solar sector when countries in Asia are burning coal at an increasing rate. In fact it is downright alarming how we think simply banning natural gas plants here at home, not building pipelines, and in a large sense crippling the energy sector will make any difference at all. The only TRUE difference that could be made is helping other countries who do not have the resources or know how available to make the switch over to natural gas. 5 year plan, get it done.
Second thing that could change is something I've already mentioned here. Increase the use of cross laminated timber in the construction industry ten fold. I believe you can safety build up to 13 or 14 stories now, so anything under 10 stories should not be ALLOWED to be concrete unless absolutely proven that CLT won't work. I don't care what the excuses are, CLT could completely change the entire outlook of our planet.
As the article states, if cement were a 'country' it would account for more C02 production than any other country in the world outside of China & the US. That means MORE than Canada. And yet nobody is talking about this because it isn't sexy, and because most people can't hate on natural gas and oil this way.
The other benefit (bigger than not using cement) is increased CLT production would result in an increased supply chain to PRODUCE the CLT. That means increased timber production, enhanced forest management, etc, etc. Nothing makes us manage our forests better than knowing we can make money doing so. And because the lumber is harvested as young growth trees, we basically allow them to sequester maximum C02, cut them down, and then use that piece of wood that is STILL storing carbon to build buildings. Lots of buildings. In the meantime we, we plant more trees in the same area, and repeat the process. Within 50 years we could have sequestered a massive amount of C02 from the atmosphere. That could reverse the climate change trend, or at the very least slow it down. It would also allow us more time to come up with much more efficient technologies such as fission and better solar & wind.
I do NOT get why this isn't being talked about and hammered away at. I have yet to hear a single politician mention it. In all 45 pages of this thread, I have been the only one to mention these two things, which to be honest, is actually shocking. It shows to me that society as decided that only CERTAIN industries or practices are a fault for what is happening, and only by getting rid of THOSE can we solve the problem.
Electric cars is not going to fix the problem. We are 50+ years away from worldwide adoption, and even if do subsidize the hell out of the purchasing process, every single person in North America driving an electric car is NOT going to reverse climate change.
The stop-gap approach of enhanced natural gas usage IS a solution. In fact, I would say it is the ONLY solution right now that can make a significant difference.
Crazy that we're not going in that direction.
And also why I don't really give a damn what is being pitched by most politicians in their 'plan.' Carbon tax? Give me a break. Politicians love using taxes to fix problems. Why not fix them the right way? Oh right, cause they're all hypocrites.
Like, if I had a bunch of climate scientists come up with a few plans, you’d “love” to read them? Somehow I doubt this.
Why would you doubt that? Have you read this thread from the beginning? I'd love to see a coherent plan to replace fossil fuel energy, and replace crude oil used in producing millions of products. Show me the math.
That's the thing though, no one is being honest about "a lot". They just pretend we can go on living the way we are, but do it cleaner. News flash, if that was possible, we'd be doing it. If it was easy, we would have done it. If it was economically viable, corporations would be all over it.
The frank, honest conversation of what we can accept for changing temperatures vs what we are prepared to do has never happened. No one has said "you can only fly once a decade, drive your car 5000km/year, keep your heat below 18 and only eat food that comes from the ground within 100km of you. Or, we can live with 3-5 degrees warming, and keep all doing what we are doing, and spend our way out of it." You think Brexit was a divisive referendum? Try putting that one to the people.
Last edited by Fuzz; 09-23-2019 at 06:28 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
There are two policies that could make a change RIGHT now.
Exporting our natural gas technology to countries that burn coal. In fact, we could export our natural gas as well. With the cheap price of natural gas, and the simple fact that it burns cleaner with less C02 emissions, a mandate to convert ALL coal plants over to natural gas in 5 years would reduce emissions significantly. Yes, it is an increased timeline, but things aren't going to start changing unless we get serious about this. The US needs to get on board with this too. They have abundant natural gas resources and some of the smartest minds in the world when it comes to the field. Why this isn't priority #1 is beyond me. It is not a middle ground approach either. Even with the increase in wind & solar, and the significant technological advancements being made in both fields to increase efficiency, we are still years away from having world wide adoption which is what really matters. There is little point in the United States having a massively growing wind & solar sector when countries in Asia are burning coal at an increasing rate. In fact it is downright alarming how we think simply banning natural gas plants here at home, not building pipelines, and in a large sense crippling the energy sector will make any difference at all. The only TRUE difference that could be made is helping other countries who do not have the resources or know how available to make the switch over to natural gas. 5 year plan, get it done.
Second thing that could change is something I've already mentioned here. Increase the use of cross laminated timber in the construction industry ten fold. I believe you can safety build up to 13 or 14 stories now, so anything under 10 stories should not be ALLOWED to be concrete unless absolutely proven that CLT won't work. I don't care what the excuses are, CLT could completely change the entire outlook of our planet.
As the article states, if cement were a 'country' it would account for more C02 production than any other country in the world outside of China & the US. That means MORE than Canada. And yet nobody is talking about this because it isn't sexy, and because most people can't hate on natural gas and oil this way.
The other benefit (bigger than not using cement) is increased CLT production would result in an increased supply chain to PRODUCE the CLT. That means increased timber production, enhanced forest management, etc, etc. Nothing makes us manage our forests better than knowing we can make money doing so. And because the lumber is harvested as young growth trees, we basically allow them to sequester maximum C02, cut them down, and then use that piece of wood that is STILL storing carbon to build buildings. Lots of buildings. In the meantime we, we plant more trees in the same area, and repeat the process. Within 50 years we could have sequestered a massive amount of C02 from the atmosphere. That could reverse the climate change trend, or at the very least slow it down. It would also allow us more time to come up with much more efficient technologies such as fission and better solar & wind.
I do NOT get why this isn't being talked about and hammered away at. I have yet to hear a single politician mention it. In all 45 pages of this thread, I have been the only one to mention these two things, which to be honest, is actually shocking. It shows to me that society as decided that only CERTAIN industries or practices are a fault for what is happening, and only by getting rid of THOSE can we solve the problem.
Electric cars is not going to fix the problem. We are 50+ years away from worldwide adoption, and even if do subsidize the hell out of the purchasing process, every single person in North America driving an electric car is NOT going to reverse climate change.
The stop-gap approach of enhanced natural gas usage IS a solution. In fact, I would say it is the ONLY solution right now that can make a significant difference.
Crazy that we're not going in that direction.
And also why I don't really give a damn what is being pitched by most politicians in their 'plan.' Carbon tax? Give me a break. Politicians love using taxes to fix problems. Why not fix them the right way? Oh right, cause they're all hypocrites.
Electric cars is not going to fix the problem. We are 50+ years away from worldwide adoption, and even if do subsidize the hell out of the purchasing process, every single person in North America driving an electric car is NOT going to reverse climate change.
The stop-gap approach of enhanced natural gas usage IS a solution. In fact, I would say it is the ONLY solution right now that can make a significant difference.
Battery electric cars powered by natural gas generators is a good stop gap, the efficiency of this system is quite high and the carbon footprint per vehicle is a fair bit better than gasoline. Not as good as a BEV powered by hydro, although hydro has significant environmental downsides we don't hear about much.
Consumers will not accept CNG cars, they stink, don't have as much power, and are dangerous in enclosed spaces. Not as stupid as hydrogen cars though.
Okay so, go. What’s your discussion? That we need to have one? You just keep accusing people of jumping to conclusions, while saying nothing.
Seriously I feel like all the detracting comments in this thread are consistently baseless “yeah well EVERYONE DOES IT!” Or “well what the heck are we gonna do!? This is the only way!”
Lots of ideas out there. Give me something from your side. I’d like to see some “intellect” from Ark on this one.
My side? You don't even know what side I'm on (clearly).
You're pretty passionate about this. And you seem to think discussion isn't necessary any more, so you tell me - what's the plan? Do we all quit our jobs, leave the car in the garage, and stop heating the house in winter? Do we stop making clothes, sending our kids to school, and playing (or watching) hockey?
Please, tell me, what's the plan, because I don't know what it is and apparently we're not allowed to discuss it any more.
My side? You don't even know what side I'm on (clearly).
You're pretty passionate about this. And you seem to think discussion isn't necessary any more, so you tell me - what's the plan? Do we all quit our jobs, leave the car in the garage, and stop heating the house in winter? Do we stop making clothes, sending our kids to school, and playing (or watching) hockey?
Please, tell me, what's the plan, because I don't know what it is and apparently we're not allowed to discuss it any more.
That’s not the case at all. Lots of room for discussion and all I saw the last page was people asking why a 12 year old is famous. That doesn’t matter, continue the conversation. People are having it all over the planet, and it’s as important as anything else we have going on. That’s my point.
Why would you doubt that? Have you read this thread from the beginning? I'd love to see a coherent plan to replace fossil fuel energy, and replace crude oil used in producing millions of products. Show me the math.
So here’s the thing. Maybe I’m misreading your posts, but it’s this attitude that strikes me as someone who is firmly dismissive of any argument on this. If I’m wrong about that, I apologize.
You find the “12 years to the initiation of the doomsday clock” claims a bit “alarmist”. That’s fine, I can see that. But let’s imagine an example (pie in the sky) where the entire scientific world agrees that we need to replace fossil fuels within 12 years. All the politicians agree, everyone agrees... there is zero way to make that happen? I don’t buy that. It would be a nightmare process to avoid a potential nightmare scenario, but it could definitely happen.
There is never going to be a coherent plan on this, it needs (if proven to be necessary) a MASSIVE overhaul. Feels like we kinda missed the soft 40 year rollout and that’s why people are angry.
When diagnosed with cancer - or any disease - it is reasonable to get a second opinion. It is also reasonable to discuss what the next steps are because, you know, there are options and different types of treatments.
No, it's actually a great example, but we'll expand on it so it is even more accurate.
You're doctor has suspected there is something wrong so he has sent you for tests and after many longitudinal studies he come to the conclusion you have cancer. So to verify the diagnosis and treatment he has sent you to 100 of the tops oncologists in the world. 97 of them agree on the diagnosis and treatment. Three of them are in disagreement, but have no consensus in diagnosis or treatment. So your doctor agrees the 97 and makes the appropriate recommendation based on subject matter experts in this field of medicine.
But you decide you feel fine. You've watched a series of infomercials from big pharma on how to treat the symptom, not the illness. You've read WebMD. You have decided that the decent voices have provided just enough information to keep the dialogue about your illness going. You are ignoring the vast majority and clinging to a small but well backed vocal minority that appeals to your limited understanding of the problem and your desires to not believe you are sick. In psychological terms do you know what this is called?
Denial.
Quote:
Almost like climate change, where there are different options on how to facilitate change. It's almost like there is room for dialogue.
What dialogue is there left to have? Why would you speak to charlatans and con men who are making gobs of money off of their denial of the very science that is explaining what is happening around us, and their past predictions coming true with frightening results? Why would you speak to someone who doesn't care about you or your children's future, but only wants to make a quick buck?
But you have done exactly what I was referring to: you assumed any call for discussion equates to denial. It is an extreme position that doesn't serve progress.
You have actually proven your willingness to buy into the denial. Believing in 97% of the subject matter experts on this subject is not an extreme position. Believing in the disjointed 3% is the extreme position. Again, there was a time for talk. That time is in the past. We are at a point where you believe in science and what they are telling you, or you believe in the anti-science that the fossil fuel industry has bought and paid for over the past 40-60 years.
The frank, honest conversation of what we can accept for changing temperatures vs what we are prepared to do has never happened.
Thanks for summing up my thoughts concisely. I’m frustrated that the “climate change is fake” conversation still has to be had (mostly by politicians) and we haven’t all moved onto your question. Although I don’t know how to have that conversation either.
No, it's actually a great example, but we'll expand on it so it is even more accurate...
Nope, still brutal. And now you have made it worse by putting words in my mouth to try and project me to have an extreme position (which I do not hold) in order to try and make your argument. I am not in denial.
And the issue isn't whether or not there is climate change (except for the extreme crazies, like Trump), the issue is what do we do about it?
But you keep on doing what you do.
Edit: lots of good info in your posts though, so thank you for that
Last edited by Enoch Root; 09-23-2019 at 07:23 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
