Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Go Back   Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community > Main Forums > The Off Topic Forum

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%
Voters: 627. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-26-2019, 02:12 PM   #1921
Flamenspiel
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Exp:
Default

Yea, but how do you put all the hockey equipment in the Corolla or the model 3? Never mind the x. I Previously owned a large Volvo sedan, it was quite a challenge to get 2 kids sets of equipment in that vehicle. I suppose Canadians will have to start taking up long distance running because its less carbon intensive.

There is a reason why people buy SUVs and trucks.
Flamenspiel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2019, 02:41 PM   #1922
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flamenspiel View Post
Yea, but how do you put all the hockey equipment in the Corolla or the model 3? Never mind the x. I Previously owned a large Volvo sedan, it was quite a challenge to get 2 kids sets of equipment in that vehicle. I suppose Canadians will have to start taking up long distance running because its less carbon intensive.

There is a reason why people buy SUVs and trucks.
How did families survive through the 80's and 90's without SUV's? Sure, it may not be quite as convenient, but I refuse to believe that more than half the trucks and SUV's on the road today ever get used to an extent that a car wouldn't suffice. And I understand sometimes the need for a large vehicle. But most families would need one such vehicle, and could probably be just fine with a car and a truck, or a car and an SUV(and a utility trailer). Look around when you are driving, and you will see 90%(guessing!) of all vehicles have one person and are way larger than they need to be running for around the city.
Fuzz is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
Old 10-26-2019, 02:51 PM   #1923
bossy22
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Exp:
Default

I have no problem fitting my hockey equipment in a Model S. I've done 4 people with 4 sets of golf clubs no problem. My wife has hauled her mountain bike in the back. Of course she has to drop the back seat of the car and remove the front wheel off the bike in that instance. The cars have a lot of storage room. I have yet to use the front trunk.
bossy22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2019, 03:39 PM   #1924
81MC
#1 Goaltender
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz View Post
How did families survive through the 80's and 90's without SUV's?
Station wagons. And later, minivans. Which are still more practical than any SUV for 90% of families. Every time I hear a mom or dad disparage minivans, you know damn well they’re driving an overpriced, underperforming and less practical SUV.
__________________
No, no…I’m not sloppy, or lazy. This is a sign of the boredom.
81MC is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to 81MC For This Useful Post:
Old 10-26-2019, 04:05 PM   #1925
Enoch Root
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2012
Exp:
Default

Also, cars (and trunks) were just bigger then. In the 70s and 80s, you could throw 4 hockey bags into the trunk of any family car. But those cars were pigs.

The problem isn't trucks and SUVs - some people/families need the space. The problem is a significant percentage of the people driving them don't need the space. If there were half as many on the roads, that would be a positive change.
Enoch Root is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2019, 04:22 PM   #1926
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Exp:
Default

Minivans are the greatest family vehicle, and I would never disparage anyone for choosing one over a useless SUV with "7" seats.
Fuzz is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
Old 10-26-2019, 05:10 PM   #1927
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root View Post
Also, cars (and trunks) were just bigger then. In the 70s and 80s, you could throw 4 hockey bags into the trunk of any family car. But those cars were pigs.

The problem isn't trucks and SUVs - some people/families need the space. The problem is a significant percentage of the people driving them don't need the space. If there were half as many on the roads, that would be a positive change.
Tons of families have two large vehicles. I get the justification for the one SUV/Truck/Minivan. The second vehicle should be a small car.
GGG is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
Old 10-26-2019, 05:35 PM   #1928
accord1999
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz View Post
Minivans are the greatest family vehicle, and I would never disparage anyone for choosing one over a useless SUV with "7" seats.
But a lot of that comes from the extra length; the Honda Odyssey is about 203.5" long while the Honda Pilot is about 194.5". And the most popular crossovers, like the CR-V and RAV-4 are around 181" long, which really aren't that big; in between a compact and mid-sized sedan.
accord1999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2019, 09:55 AM   #1929
8 Ball
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz View Post
Minivans are the greatest family vehicle, and I would never disparage anyone for choosing one over a useless SUV with "7" seats.
I've owned both, and I much prefer the SUV. Rear seats fold down, so lots of storage, and more power than a mini van.
8 Ball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2019, 10:46 AM   #1930
Street Pharmacist
Franchise Player
 
Street Pharmacist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Salmon with Arms
Exp:
Default

My Pacifica Hybrid >>>>>>>> Terrain as a family Vehicle

Couldn't ever fold the seats down in the Terrain if was going to bring kids as they need the back seat. As a bonus, if I really need to, I can remove the second row and fold the third row down to fit a 4x8 sheet of plywood in and still course the door.

It's massive, but literally zero gas used unless we go on long trips and even then the fuel economy is outstanding. At over 9000km I've spent about $400 in gas and electricity ($260 is gas)
Street Pharmacist is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
Old 10-29-2019, 08:55 AM   #1931
burn_this_city
Franchise Player
 
burn_this_city's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

burn_this_city is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to burn_this_city For This Useful Post:
Old 10-29-2019, 09:17 AM   #1932
stone hands
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

get a minivan or a hatchback if you need storage space
stone hands is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2019, 09:20 AM   #1933
Scroopy Noopers
Pent-up
 
Scroopy Noopers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Plutanamo Bay.
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist View Post
My Pacifica Hybrid >>>>>>>> Terrain as a family Vehicle

Couldn't ever fold the seats down in the Terrain if was going to bring kids as they need the back seat. As a bonus, if I really need to, I can remove the second row and fold the third row down to fit a 4x8 sheet of plywood in and still course the door.

It's massive, but literally zero gas used unless we go on long trips and even then the fuel economy is outstanding. At over 9000km I've spent about $400 in gas and electricity ($260 is gas)
Anecdotally I’ve never heard gear heads rave about a family vehicle more than the Pacifica. Everyone I know just loves the thing.
Scroopy Noopers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2019, 09:25 AM   #1934
corporatejay
Franchise Player
 
corporatejay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Exp:
Default

Lots of "shoulds" and "you don't needs" in this thread.

How about you just let people live their lives without being so judgmental. I'm sure there's dozens of dumb #### you guys choose that other people would find stupid.
__________________
corporatejay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2019, 09:43 AM   #1935
Street Pharmacist
Franchise Player
 
Street Pharmacist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Salmon with Arms
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by corporatejay View Post
Lots of "shoulds" and "you don't needs" in this thread.



How about you just let people live their lives without being so judgmental. I'm sure there's dozens of dumb #### you guys choose that other people would find stupid.
Well, if the thrust of the thread is about climate change and how to solve it, how do you do that without suggesting what should be done or what we don't need?
Street Pharmacist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2019, 10:54 AM   #1936
Azure
Had an idea!
 
Azure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz View Post
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...figures-reveal


I had wondered how big an effect hat was having. That's crazy. Get people back in reasonably sized cars, the SUV craze has gone way to far. Plus, they are ugly. Perhaps we need an SUV tax.
I would be fine with a SUV tax.
Azure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2019, 10:59 AM   #1937
Azure
Had an idea!
 
Azure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Exp:
Default

I'll just leave this here.

Quote:
LNG from Western Canada is expected to have among the lowest GHG profiles in the world, layering another competitive advantage on top of fast shipping times to Asia.

Right out of the gate with the first major project, Canadian LNG operations will be well below the global emissions average of 0.26 to 0.35 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per tonne of LNG produced. LNG Canada, currently under construction at Kitimat, B.C., is being designed for 0.15 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per tonne per tonne of LNG.

The two projects that may follow over the next decade – Woodfibre LNG and Kitimat LNG – are designed for intensity of approximately 0.06 to 0.08 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per tonne of LNG.

“Liquefied natural gas from B.C will have the least CO2 per tonne of any LNG produced in the world,” said Bryan Cox, CEO of the BC LNG Alliance.

“Not only will B.C. projects have the potential to reduce global emissions by displacing coal, they will also reduce global emissions if they replace LNG produced in other jurisdictions.”
https://www.jwnenergy.com/article/20...er-best-class/

Remember when I said we should export our technology as well as our resources to help other countries?

I bet you Greta and her fellow morons aren't talking about this amazing technology, and how revolutionary the energy sector in Canada has been to lowering emissions and creating a cleaner environment.
Azure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2019, 11:23 AM   #1938
zamler
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure View Post
I bet you Greta and her fellow morons aren't talking about this amazing technology, and how revolutionary the energy sector in Canada has been to lowering emissions and creating a cleaner environment.
She doesn't want hope and doesn't want us to hope either.
“We owe it to young people to give them hope.” But I don’t want your hope. I don’t want you to be hopeful. I want you to panic. I want you to feel the fear I feel every day, and then I want you to act. I want you to act as you would in a crisis. I want you to act as if our house is on fire. Because it is.”
She wants "house on fire" action what exactly is that? And no we are not going to live in fear and panic that's not the state of mind capable of solving problems.
zamler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2019, 11:30 AM   #1939
Azure
Had an idea!
 
Azure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Exp:
Default

Why can't we get down to 0.02 tonnes?

It just blows my mind that this isn't seen as a feasible option. Canada could literally be at the cutting edge of reducing world wide emissions. We have the resources, labor, expertise & ability to make it happen.

But instead we listen to Greta and her cronies.

What a mess.
Azure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2019, 11:48 AM   #1940
corporatejay
Franchise Player
 
corporatejay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist View Post
Well, if the thrust of the thread is about climate change and how to solve it, how do you do that without suggesting what should be done or what we don't need?
Because you are making assumptions about what people need when you don't know their circumstances
__________________
corporatejay is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:37 PM.

Calgary Flames
2023-24




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021