Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

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

View Poll Results: What role do humans play in contributing to climate change?
Humans are the primary contributor to climate change 303 64.33%
Humans contribute to climate change, but not the main cause 125 26.54%
Not sure 26 5.52%
Climate change is a hoax 17 3.61%
Voters: 471. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-19-2019, 08:03 AM   #821
jayswin
Celebrated Square Root Day
 
jayswin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Exp:
Default

Problem is we'll never have serious change until the superpowers start doing something. China has made some attempts, but will still likely cost our planet dearly as they start to industrialize, and the US and Russia are still all in on Oil production for the foreseeable future, while the US successfully projects otherwise.
jayswin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2019, 08:06 AM   #822
MelBridgeman
Franchise Player
 
MelBridgeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayswin View Post
Problem is we'll never have serious change until the superpowers start doing something. China has made some attempts, but will still likely cost our planet dearly as they start to industrialize, and the US and Russia are still all in on Oil production for the foreseeable future, while the US successfully projects otherwise.
And Canada could be a leader in helping China...LNG over coal ..oh wait..Our current government rightly or wrongly has tarnished that relationship...oh India as well, another big polluter.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie Telford The chief of staff to the prime minister of Canada
“Line up all kinds of people to write op-eds.”
MelBridgeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2019, 08:08 AM   #823
Scroopy Noopers
Pent-up
 
Scroopy Noopers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Ontario, unfortunately.
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MelBridgeman View Post
It sure is an economic issue.. what runs our economy, what has lifted so many people out of poverty in the last 100 years is access to cheap energy the very thing that is contributing to climate change. There is a litany of examples currently and historically the should illustrate for you the true cost of bad economic policy and/or bad economic systems. Tackling climate change isn’t free.

How should we look at it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You need 100% buy in that it’s a real problem.

The economics will work themselves out, or you can make them work.

Either way the biggest issue is at the heart of every debate people say “no biggie” or “this isn’t our fault” or “it’s not as bad as we are projecting”.

It is. It’s vitally important. Agree on that point across the board, and then make the economics work.
Scroopy Noopers is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Scroopy Noopers For This Useful Post:
Old 08-19-2019, 08:15 AM   #824
MelBridgeman
Franchise Player
 
MelBridgeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

You have the current Minister of Climate Change calling/inferring that people who don't support the carbon tax are climate change deniers. This isn't helpful. I don't support a carbon tax simply because it just isn't going to do anything unless it's something that is global and even still it makes a tiny dent. We need people with real solutions and unfortunately they aren't any in government. Having a plan that doesn't do much is no different than having no plan - or in some causes like the Green New Deal which would destroy the american economy and cause massive civil unrest, you may as well just let climate change cause that.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie Telford The chief of staff to the prime minister of Canada
“Line up all kinds of people to write op-eds.”
MelBridgeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2019, 08:26 AM   #825
Scroopy Noopers
Pent-up
 
Scroopy Noopers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Ontario, unfortunately.
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MelBridgeman View Post
You have the current Minister of Climate Change calling/inferring that people who don't support the carbon tax are climate change deniers. This isn't helpful. I don't support a carbon tax simply because it just isn't going to do anything unless it's something that is global and even still it makes a tiny dent. We need people with real solutions and unfortunately they aren't any in government. Having a plan that doesn't do much is no different than having no plan - or in some causes like the Green New Deal which would destroy the american economy and cause massive civil unrest, you may as well just let climate change cause that.
.... that’s the worst possible outcome.
Scroopy Noopers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2019, 08:51 AM   #826
New Era
Franchise Player
 
New Era's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MelBridgeman View Post
It sure is an economic issue..
No, it's not. It's no more an economic issue than deciding on treating cancer. It is a survival issue. Economics is an excuse by those who make their money from the thing that is causing the problem. Economics, like climate change, is a man made construct and we will change it to adapt to our changing needs. But we won't change as long as people continue to buy the propaganda pumped out by the very industries causing the problem.

For example, the dupes who believed that jobs related to coal (the original fossil fuel) were going to come roaring back have learned a very hard lesson. The industry is stagnant and is in profit mode. All innovation has dried up as the product achieved maturity a half century ago. The product is clearly on the decline and the corporations who own the product are milking as much profit out of it as possible. The only ones getting rich off this industry are the fat cats who run the corporations. The promise of jobs was a smoke screen.

The reality is the growth in employment and innovation are in renewables than in fossil fuels. Coal has been a massive failure. Solar has led the way in job creation, especially in small start ups. That is a shift in the economy. This is what people need to understand. The economy will follow the demands of the market. If demand continues to shift the market will follow and the economy will change to meet the needs.

Quote:
what runs our economy,
Corporations. Period. They run our society as well. They tell us where to work, where to spend, what to buy, what to think, and what to believe in. Corporations control our economy and our daily lives. Corporations tell governments what to do and make the people pay for their mistakes, so they can continue to rake in massive profits and money for the very select few in society.

Quote:
what has lifted so many people out of poverty in the last 100 years is access to cheap energy the very thing that is contributing to climate change.
No, what has lifted so many people out of poverty in the last 100 years has been education and unions. All those crazy benefits that people have amassed and created the middle class have come from unions. Wages beyond slave labor wages came as a result of unions. The 40 hour work week came as a result of unions. Fringe benefits (medical, retirement/pensions, vacation time, etc.) that made the middle class possible were a result of unions. If you were looking for a very specific market segment responsible for the greatest impact on the middle class, that was manufacturing, and it isn't even close. The loss of manufacturing capacity in the United States is the downfall of the middle class. Not fossil fuels. The whole fossil fuel industry in the US employs just over a million people. Walmart employs twice that number.

Quote:
There is a litany of examples currently and historically the should illustrate for you the true cost of bad economic policy and/or bad economic systems. Tackling climate change isn’t free.
Nothing is free. There is a cost for everything, including using fossil fuels. If you are making your life saving medical decisions on economic factors you likely won't be around long. The thing we have to understand is that economies will shift. Economies are shifting. As long as we don't give the corporations the power to halt these shifts, the economy will change and will remain healthy. It's when small groups prevent organic change where problems happen. We must keep those interests in check as well as their interests are rarely aligned with what is right and good for society.

Quote:
How should we look at it?
Like it is a life and death situation. Like we are battling lung cancer and need to be aggressive in how we treat the illness. When you have that type of life threatening situation, all economics go out the window. You do what you have to just to survive. We need to take prescriptive measures to survive. The world will not end because of our impact on the ecosystem, but we will. Make no mistake, we are doing damage to millions of species on this planet and making it unlivable for them. This will roll up hill. We are contributing to an extinction level event, and humans will be on that list of casualties. The ecosystem is a very fragile thing, and as the apex predator in that system we must be careful not to upset the balance or it will negatively affect our ability to survive as well.

What is so amazing about the misinformation campaign going on is it is the exact same strategy used by big tobacco. In fact, it is some of the same companies who managed the messages and conflated the science behind cancer and tobacco use that are creating disinformation about climate science and trying to make people believe it isn't happening or the science is in. We are whistling past our own graveyard.
New Era is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to New Era For This Useful Post:
Old 08-19-2019, 09:39 AM   #827
Weitz
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

All that is well and good, but it doesn't matter if the world isn't going to end tomorrow and people have to support their families. Which comes back to economics.
Weitz is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Weitz For This Useful Post:
Old 08-19-2019, 09:42 AM   #828
OMG!WTF!
#1 Goaltender
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Exp:
Default

Cancer kills more poor people than rich people. It's always about economics.
OMG!WTF! is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2019, 09:51 AM   #829
MelBridgeman
Franchise Player
 
MelBridgeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers View Post
.... that’s the worst possible outcome.
maybe if the implementation was decades instead of 10 years (2030). That is single most fundamental thing wrong with the plan is timeline.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie Telford The chief of staff to the prime minister of Canada
“Line up all kinds of people to write op-eds.”
MelBridgeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2019, 09:56 AM   #830
Ark2
Franchise Player
 
Ark2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers View Post
.... that’s the worst possible outcome.
You're making some pretty strong statements without really backing it up with anything. Climate change is worse than the economic fallout that would be caused by the Green New Deal? Climate change is as bad as the worst predictions are forecasting? Overstating a problem does not necessarily make you right or "pro-science".
Ark2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2019, 10:00 AM   #831
Scroopy Noopers
Pent-up
 
Scroopy Noopers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Ontario, unfortunately.
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ark2 View Post
You're making some pretty strong statements without really backing it up with anything. Climate change is worse than the economic fallout that would be caused by the Green New Deal? Climate change is as bad as the worst predictions are forecasting? Overstating a problem does not necessarily make you right or "pro-science".
.... I specifically highlighted the sentence I was replying too. Try again.
Scroopy Noopers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2019, 10:07 AM   #832
Ark2
Franchise Player
 
Ark2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers View Post
.... I specifically highlighted the sentence I was replying too. Try again.
Perhaps I was giving your post too much credit as I just assumed that, The Green New Deal, a proposal that will radically change the US economy, would cause civil unrest through economic fallout. Maybe you are envisioning civil unrest caused by some other means? I dunno. Regardless, there is nothing intellectual or "pro-science" about proclaiming that the worst possibly conceived climate change scenario is a fact.
Ark2 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Ark2 For This Useful Post:
Old 08-19-2019, 10:12 AM   #833
MelBridgeman
Franchise Player
 
MelBridgeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era View Post
No, what has lifted so many people out of poverty in the last 100 years has been education and unions. All those crazy benefits that people have amassed and created the middle class have come from unions. Wages beyond slave labor wages came as a result of unions. The 40 hour work week came as a result of unions. Fringe benefits (medical, retirement/pensions, vacation time, etc.) that made the middle class possible were a result of unions. If you were looking for a very specific market segment responsible for the greatest impact on the middle class, that was manufacturing, and it isn't even close. The loss of manufacturing capacity in the United States is the downfall of the middle class. Not fossil fuels. The whole fossil fuel industry in the US employs just over a million people. Walmart employs twice that number.
There is a lot in the original post. So let's start with this. I don't disagree with this, but again you wouldn't have any of it without cheap energy which opened up markets all over the world for products, amongst a litany of other things its done... which amassed the wealth the Unions went after. Def had their effect especially in the First World but not anywhere near cheap energy. Again there is more than one factor but cheap energy has been the biggest.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie Telford The chief of staff to the prime minister of Canada
“Line up all kinds of people to write op-eds.”
MelBridgeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2019, 10:28 AM   #834
New Era
Franchise Player
 
New Era's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ark2 View Post
Perhaps I was giving your post too much credit as I just assumed that, The Green New Deal, a proposal that will radically change the US economy, would cause civil unrest through economic fallout. Maybe you are envisioning civil unrest caused by some other means? I dunno.
And why would this happen? As has been pointed out, the greatest growth in energy jobs has been in the renewables sector, and more specifically solar. These are all good paying jobs and support middle class growth. So why would continued shift and greater expansion of this industry cause civil unrest?

Quote:
Regardless, there is nothing intellectual or "pro-science" about proclaiming that the worst possibly conceived climate change scenario is a fact.
But it's okay to make a projection that society will ultimately crumble because we change the source of power generation? Again, the fossil fuel industry employs just over a million Americans. That industry is not going away, as we will always need the carbon molecule for other purposes, it will just shift in importance. I do not see the crumbling of society as a result of the change in adoption of a new energy standard, one that pretty much powers most parts of our daily lives. Conversely, the forced migration of 40% of the world's population, because of sea rise, is something that will cause global civil unrest as people are fighting for resources inland after losing almost everything. That isn't a worse case scenario. That is something the United States military has identified as an existential threat and preparing to deal with.
New Era is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to New Era For This Useful Post:
Old 08-19-2019, 10:46 AM   #835
Scroopy Noopers
Pent-up
 
Scroopy Noopers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Ontario, unfortunately.
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ark2 View Post
Perhaps I was giving your post too much credit as I just assumed that, The Green New Deal, a proposal that will radically change the US economy, would cause civil unrest through economic fallout. Maybe you are envisioning civil unrest caused by some other means? I dunno. Regardless, there is nothing intellectual or "pro-science" about proclaiming that the worst possibly conceived climate change scenario is a fact.
I wasn’t envisioning anything. I was responding to the comment that “we might as well allow climate change to cause massive civil unrest”. That sounds like the worst possible option to me... it doesn’t to you? The only way I see climate change causing economic collapse and massive civil unrest is when it’s too late and everything is dying.

I never claimed that was 100% happening.
Scroopy Noopers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2019, 09:36 AM   #836
tripin_billie
#1 Goaltender
 
tripin_billie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: DC
Exp:
Default

https://phys.org/news/2019-08-scient...il-bitumen.amp

Hydrogen from bitumen at scale. Is this for real?
tripin_billie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2019, 10:13 AM   #837
zamler
Franchise Player
 
zamler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Exp:
Default

Sounds too good to be true so it probably is.
zamler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2019, 10:39 AM   #838
tripin_billie
#1 Goaltender
 
tripin_billie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: DC
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zamler View Post
Sounds too good to be true so it probably is.
That was my hot take too. Alas.
tripin_billie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2019, 10:47 AM   #839
New Era
Franchise Player
 
New Era's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zamler View Post
Sounds too good to be true so it probably is.
Maybe not?

https://sciencecodex.com/scientists-...-energy-632014

"The technology was developed by Ian Gates and Jacky Wang as the result of an agreement between the University of Calgary and Proton Technologies Inc., which now holds the patent."

"Just taking Alberta as an example, we have the potential to supply Canada's entire electricity requirement for 330 years (Canada uses around 2.5% of the world's electricity - around the same amount as Germany, and more than France or the UK)."

https://www.ibtimes.sg/energy-crisis...l-fields-32152

""This technique can draw up huge quantities of hydrogen while leaving the carbon in the ground. When working at the production level, we anticipate we will be able to use the existing infrastructure and distribution chains to produce H2 for between 10 and 50 cents per kilo. This means it potentially costs a fraction of gasoline for equivalent output," said Grant Strem, CEO of Proton Technologies, the company that is commercializing the process, in a recent statement."

https://www.greencarcongress.com/201...20-proton.html

"Oil fields, even abandoned oil fields, still contain significant amounts of oil. The researchers propose injecting oxygen deep into the reservoirs. Gases, coke and heavier hydrocarbons are oxidized in place (in-situ combustion). Targeted portions of the reservoir become very warm. Where necessary, the temperatures are heightened further through radio frequency emissions.

Eventually, oxidation temperatures exceed 500°C. This heat causes the nearby hydrocarbons—and any surrounding water molecules—to break apart (thermolysis).Thermolysis, gas reforming and water-gas shift have been used in commercial industrial processes to generate hydrogen for more than 100 years. In this new approach, these processes are controlled through the timing and pattern of oxygen injection and external heating."

Promising indeed. We'll see if it ever gets to market.
New Era is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to New Era For This Useful Post:
Old 08-20-2019, 10:59 AM   #840
zamler
Franchise Player
 
zamler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era View Post
Maybe not?
I read the article, and clicked the link in the article which takes you to another article that is identical. There is precious little info such as energy in/out ratio, how the pure oxygen obtained, how does the process scale. In fact there is almost no info at all just a black box explanation, we do [mystery process with oxygen] and out comes hydrogen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tripin_billie View Post
That was my hot take too. Alas.
Need to at least see a working setup, proof of concept.
zamler 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 07:40 PM.

Calgary Flames
2017-18




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2016