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% |
05-23-2019, 10:04 AM
|
#421
|
Powerplay Quarterback
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame
Do you really think China would stop buying from Saudi Arabia anyways because another dealer has less ####ty of a record?
I doubt Xi Jinping and the Communist Party is going to have a moral renaissance moment. Pretty sure it comes down to price of the product and not the ethics behind it.
|
This is exactly the argument I'm making. Reducing Canadian exports really doesn't apply any pressure on other oil producing countries - to the contrary, it just means more business for them at our expense
The point about their record is that I'd much rather have that income from the purchases china is going to make regardless go into the canadian economy, rather than funding ISIS and a new gold plated lambo for some arabian prince
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to stone hands For This Useful Post:
|
|
05-31-2019, 12:18 PM
|
#422
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Normally, my desk
|
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/...human-history/
I was looking at other things and found this article. Seems worthy of knowing.
World reaches 415ppm of C02 for first time in 800,000 years.
|
|
|
06-04-2019, 01:22 PM
|
#425
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Alberta
|
I missed this Neil McDonald piece from a couple of weeks ago.
Paying some piddling carbon tax will do nothing to defend us from what lies ahead: Neil Macdonald
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5143916?fbc...9r1KuhFNfZncEA
The (carbon) tax also provides an excellent diversion to keep the public's attention away from something our politicians are not saying a word about: the monumental cost of preventing, or paying for, the damage climate change will deliver from now on.
No one knows how much money flood-proofing Canada will cost, but it's safe to assume hundreds of billions of dollars. And experts like Feltmate have already calculated that NOT doing the floodproofing work increases the eventual cost by 400 to a thousand per cent.
And in any case, let's not forget where we live. This is Canada, for heaven's sake. The cost of flood-proofing this country will be largely paid for with tax revenue. It's inevitable.
It is a clear and present danger at this point, and what are we discussing? A meaningless bit of window-dressing sin tax
|
|
|
06-04-2019, 03:00 PM
|
#426
|
Our Jessica Fletcher
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
|
"food supplies will run low"
Bull####. To every "scientist" and "environmentalist" that trots this out, time after time, I say bull####.
Climate change is not having a negative impact on yields, and if the plants had it their way, atmospheric CO2 would be quadrupled.
Edit: my comments are not aimed at you, CC
Last edited by The Fonz; 06-04-2019 at 03:18 PM.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to The Fonz For This Useful Post:
|
|
06-04-2019, 03:24 PM
|
#427
|
One of the Nine
|
Oh well, haven't you heard? The human race will be extinct by 2050, so who cares how much food there is left over?
|
|
|
06-04-2019, 03:33 PM
|
#428
|
Our Jessica Fletcher
|
The other line that gets used, "the poor will suffer the worst from climate change".
Really?
Hmmmmmmmmm
*Roger Millions voice*
|
|
|
06-04-2019, 03:34 PM
|
#429
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
|
Only the markets, innovation and technology will save us. just like every other time
__________________
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.”
|
|
|
|
06-04-2019, 03:39 PM
|
#430
|
Posted the 6 millionth post!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Fonz
The other line that gets used, "the poor will suffer the worst from climate change".
Really?
Hmmmmmmmmm
*Roger Millions voice*
|
Nourishment and climate change - and who is affected by each - are two different arguments. I am not sure you can draw an exclusive parallel between these two.
Climate change has nothing to do with the health and availability of crops and foods for human consumption. It has to do with the changing climate patterns and its impact on the environment, farmland or otherwise.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to 4X4 For This Useful Post:
|
|
06-04-2019, 03:41 PM
|
#432
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Victoria
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Fonz
The other line that gets used, "the poor will suffer the worst from climate change".
Really?
Hmmmmmmmmm
*Roger Millions voice*
|
That chart doesn't really disprove the argument that the poor will suffer the most. Nourishment is really only one indicator and doesn't capture other factors that disproportionately affect impoverished people such as wars, displacement, etc., that can be caused by outcomes related to climate change.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
|
|
06-04-2019, 03:55 PM
|
#433
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4X4
I don't know if you get QR77 out there (Fonz), but you can download podcasts from Danielle Smith's shows. She's extremely interested in the SOLUTIONS to climate change and has very interesting guests on all the time. Today she interviewed the head of (can't remember the department name) from U of C, and they're working on nano carbon fibre. It is stronger than steel, though not necessarily a replacement in all areas, and it uses CO2 and methane emissions to make it. Basically, the hope is that the waste from certain industries would become the raw materials for new kinds of manufacturing.
She has super interesting segments like this all the time, and it paints a much different picture than DOOM!!! Humans are pretty creative, and I would not be surprised if advancements along these lines end up being the key to balancing the emissions problem that nobody is denying we have. It's just that the solutions is not to just go back to mud huts and turn off the lights. The solutions will be in the form of technology.
|
Ya, a few of her guests are full of #### though, and she just agrees with them. I think I posted about one of them a week ago. Highly misleading. She's almost to agreeable to be a good interviewer.
|
|
|
06-04-2019, 03:57 PM
|
#434
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Victoria
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
Ya, a few of her guests are full of #### though, and she just agrees with them. I think I posted about one of them a week ago. Highly misleading. She's almost to agreeable to be a good interviewer.
|
This is why I can't stand Joe Rogan either.
|
|
|
06-04-2019, 04:00 PM
|
#435
|
Our Jessica Fletcher
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame
Climate change has nothing to do with the health and availability of crops-
It has to do with the changing climate patterns and its impact on the...farmland-
|
Don't these two sentences directly conflict with each other?
Regardless, the argument put forth by many alarmists and doomsday authors is that climate change will wreak havoc on crops, and dwindle global food supplies to the point of mass starvation (with the poor suffering the worst). I'm calling complete bull#### on that, as evidenced by the last 50 years of global food production.
|
|
|
06-04-2019, 04:01 PM
|
#436
|
One of the Nine
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
Ya, a few of her guests are full of #### though, and she just agrees with them. I think I posted about one of them a week ago. Highly misleading. She's almost to agreeable to be a good interviewer.
|
Which guest are you talking about?
|
|
|
06-04-2019, 04:10 PM
|
#437
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Victoria
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Fonz
Don't these two sentences directly conflict with each other?
Regardless, the argument put forth by many alarmists and doomsday authors is that climate change will wreak havoc on crops, and dwindle global food supplies to the point of mass starvation (with the poor suffering the worst). I'm calling complete bull#### on that, as evidenced by the last 50 years of global food production.
|
Does that take into account the differences in foods produced by large agricultural operations vs. communal farms? I think from what I've previously read, some of the concern is that the changing climate will make it difficult for poorer farmers in developing nations to sustain their crops due to their inability to purchase/maintain the equipment, pesticides, etc., that MNCs can. The arguments also seem to rest on the assumption that these people would not have the necessary means to purchase the equivalent amount of food to sustain themselves if they can't grow their own crops.
Granted, you could definitely argue that that's more of a failure of unchecked global capitalism, but we don't seem to be particularly interested in altering our antiquated principles in that area either.
|
|
|
06-04-2019, 04:34 PM
|
#438
|
Posted the 6 millionth post!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Fonz
Don't these two sentences directly conflict with each other?
|
No. You should read/quote the sentence in its entirety instead of selectively picking what I said. I am say climate change affects environment, whether it's farmland or anything else.
Climate change has nothing to do with the health and availability of crops and foods for human consumption. It has to do with the changing climate patterns and its impact on the environment, farmland or otherwise.
Perhaps I should have used a semi colon instead of a common if it helps.
|
|
|
06-04-2019, 04:36 PM
|
#439
|
Our Jessica Fletcher
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
Does that take into account the differences in foods produced by large agricultural operations vs. communal farms? I think from what I've previously read, some of the concern is that the changing climate will make it difficult for poorer farmers in developing nations to sustain their crops due to their inability to purchase/maintain the equipment, pesticides, etc., that MNCs can.
|
Do you have a link to or remember where you read this? I'd be curious to see their reasoning for why climate change would disproportionately affect poorer farmers.
When I think of poor and/or communal (ie small acre) farms, India comes to mind. The farms in India are extremely small (2.5ac on average, as opposed to 800ac on average in Canada), and they are extremely poor. This is not due to poor growing conditions or under-production though, but rather over-production resulting in over-supply (India has more than quadrupled their crop production since 1950). They are setting production records every other year, so climate change certainly hasn't had a negative impact on their yields either.
Last edited by The Fonz; 06-04-2019 at 04:38 PM.
|
|
|
06-04-2019, 04:44 PM
|
#440
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4X4
Which guest are you talking about?
|
Oh jeez, I can't remember. He was talking about CO2 levels and my bull#### meter was going off so I fact checked. He was wrong.
|
|
|
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 12:32 AM.
|
|