The times will be changing.
End of the oilsands by 2050? G7 puts Canada on the spot with target for low emissions | Financial Post
End of the oilsands by 2050? G7 puts Canada on the spot with target for low emissions | Financial Post
No Carbon Economy By 2100
- Thread starter Kreskin
- Start date
Harper agrees to fossil fuel free economy by 2100
Prime Minister Stephen Harper agrees to G7 'decarbonization' by 2100
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has agreed to a G7 commitment to deep cuts in carbon emissions by 2050 — with an eventual stop in the use of fossil fuels by the end of the century.
The call for a low-carbon footprint will "require a transformation in our energy sectors," Harper said Monday at a news conference in Germany, following the two-day G7 summit.
"Nobody's going to start to shut down their industries or turn off the lights," he said. "We've simply got to find a way to create lower-carbon emitting sources of energy — and that work is ongoing."
Canada and Japan blocked attempts at a stronger statement on binding greenhouse gas reduction targets, according to The Canadian Press sources who saw a working draft of the G7 communiqué, which was released today as the summit wrapped up.
"We emphasize that deep cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions are required with a decarbonization of the global economy over the course of this century," the G7 leaders said in their final communiqué.
"We commit to doing our part to achieve a low-carbon global economy in the long-term including developing and deploying innovative technologies striving for a transformation of the energy sectors by 2050 and invite all countries to join us in this endeavour."
German Chancellor Angela Merkel had been pushing the G7 to endorse a pledge to reach zero carbon emissions.
"Canada and Japan are the most concerned about this one," said one source who was privy to discussions but would only speak on the condition of anonymity. "The two of those countries have been the most difficult on every issue on climate."
In May, Canada committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 — an ambitious goal that will rely on emission targets previously announced by the provinces.
...more on this groundbreaking agreement...
http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/politics/p...grees-to-g7-decarbonization-by-2100-1.3104459
Edit: Another thread was posted while I was copy/pasting.
Please merge.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper agrees to G7 'decarbonization' by 2100
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has agreed to a G7 commitment to deep cuts in carbon emissions by 2050 — with an eventual stop in the use of fossil fuels by the end of the century.
The call for a low-carbon footprint will "require a transformation in our energy sectors," Harper said Monday at a news conference in Germany, following the two-day G7 summit.
"Nobody's going to start to shut down their industries or turn off the lights," he said. "We've simply got to find a way to create lower-carbon emitting sources of energy — and that work is ongoing."
Canada and Japan blocked attempts at a stronger statement on binding greenhouse gas reduction targets, according to The Canadian Press sources who saw a working draft of the G7 communiqué, which was released today as the summit wrapped up.
"We emphasize that deep cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions are required with a decarbonization of the global economy over the course of this century," the G7 leaders said in their final communiqué.
"We commit to doing our part to achieve a low-carbon global economy in the long-term including developing and deploying innovative technologies striving for a transformation of the energy sectors by 2050 and invite all countries to join us in this endeavour."
German Chancellor Angela Merkel had been pushing the G7 to endorse a pledge to reach zero carbon emissions.
"Canada and Japan are the most concerned about this one," said one source who was privy to discussions but would only speak on the condition of anonymity. "The two of those countries have been the most difficult on every issue on climate."
In May, Canada committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 — an ambitious goal that will rely on emission targets previously announced by the provinces.
...more on this groundbreaking agreement...
http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/politics/p...grees-to-g7-decarbonization-by-2100-1.3104459
Edit: Another thread was posted while I was copy/pasting.
Please merge.
Lets put the billions used into planting hemp as the world always needs strong fabrics and hemp is a multitasking plant if there was ever one. No pipelines, no toxic spills and as a 'weed' it adapts to local conditions quickly and over time it it very good for soil that was contaminated. The lake mentioned in another thread that was poisoned with mercury should be able to be cleaned up by that same plant. Cover the shores with it and find a cheap solution to getting water from the lake to the top of where they are planted and over a few (or many) seasons the heavy metals could be filtered out of the water and into the plants. In this case the harvest would be put into the water where it sinks and covers the mud with a layer of fiber that doesn't rot very easily so the trapped material stays at the bottom and new cleaner mud will cover it over time. Each year the lake would get cleaner. A few small floating windmills would be enough to lift water the 50 or 100 ft it needs. That it would work over time is a reason to do it, that is has no money in the bank in a short time is a reason it won't be done.
How much is taken off for having a forest that cleans the air and adds O2 to the air that gets taken in by people who aren't Canadians?
Close it down, it was always a waste of money from the start anyway. It was an experiment to see what the place could produce, that being done it is too expensive as the same products are available elsewhere at a cheaper price. No use building a bunch of lines going to shipping ports as we have no customers to sell it to. You can only beat a dead horse so long and the only change will be your arm gets tired and sore.
How much is taken off for having a forest that cleans the air and adds O2 to the air that gets taken in by people who aren't Canadians?
Re: Harper agrees to fossil fuel free economy by 2100
Another wonderful move that benefits a nation rich in, . . . wait for it, . . . fossil fuels. ROFLMAO
Another wonderful move that benefits a nation rich in, . . . wait for it, . . . fossil fuels. ROFLMAO
The only possible replacement for fossil fuel and thermal power generation is Nuclear Fusion. Which might be possible, in a century or two.. if civilization doesn't collapse first under the weight of irrational New Age, post structural, anti-Christian and antihuman, neo pagan radical enviromentalism. All of the the 'clean' alternatives to Coal... wind, solar, synthetic fuels.. are vastly less efficient, more costly and more environmentally destructrive than carbon.
It probably means we are stuck with it as they will not abandon a business that still has trillions in profits to be made. They would already know what the alternative will be as to what produces electricity that will be the replacement fuel. How it is made could be as easy as an industrial hho generator, tidal currents and a host of other efficient methods. Till then don't expect an changes for the most part.
Re: Harper agrees to fossil fuel free economy by 2100
Canada should quit the G7. It obligates us to subscribe to these utterly unattainable, nonsense ridden agendas pandering to politically correct political platforms in other countries. The bottom line is there is no other substitute for fossil fuels.
They might be able to be more efficiently burned.. but they are going to be around for centuries. What's more, since AGW is a prove FRAUD.. they will have minimal environmental impact... certainly much less than its so called alternatives and much less expensively.
Canada should quit the G7. It obligates us to subscribe to these utterly unattainable, nonsense ridden agendas pandering to politically correct political platforms in other countries. The bottom line is there is no other substitute for fossil fuels.
They might be able to be more efficiently burned.. but they are going to be around for centuries. What's more, since AGW is a prove FRAUD.. they will have minimal environmental impact... certainly much less than its so called alternatives and much less expensively.
Re: Harper agrees to fossil fuel free economy by 2100
The land eventually heals itself anyway, the sad news is it gets expensive if we want minimal damage and the ones with the money tend to be on the cheap side as well.
The land eventually heals itself anyway, the sad news is it gets expensive if we want minimal damage and the ones with the money tend to be on the cheap side as well.
