Justin Trudeau signs Paris climate treaty at UN, vows to harness renewable energy


mentalfloss
#61
Quote: Originally Posted by AngstromView Post

That's why you need to have people figuring it out in their garage to create competition to drive the prices down.

How many times do I need to tell you that this won't happen fast enough for you to accept it?
 
Angstrom
No Party Affiliation
+2
#62
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

How many times do I need to tell you that this won't happen fast enough for you to accept it?

Then , it won't happen. It's as simple as that Floss. The government can stimulate this as much as they want. People have to do it for themselves, what people buy for themselves is what really is our driving force in our economy.
 
mentalfloss
#63
Quote: Originally Posted by AngstromView Post

Then , it won't happen. It's as simple as that Floss. The government can stimulate this as much as they want. People have to do it for themselves, what people buy for themselves is what really is our driving force in our economy.

Eventually it will get there, but the reason for intervention is to accelerate the process.
 
Angstrom
No Party Affiliation
#64
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Eventually it will get there, but the reason for intervention is to accelerate the process.

If they want to accelerate this, they need to accelerate demand, not supply like you suggest.
 
mentalfloss
#65
Quote: Originally Posted by AngstromView Post

If they want to accelerate this, they need to accelerate demand, not supply like you suggest.

Yes, it's called carbon pricing.
 
Angstrom
No Party Affiliation
#66
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Yes, it's called carbon pricing.

The point I'm making is That it only stimulates corporate demand, not personal.

If there was personal demand in the first place, we woundnt need to artificially stimulate demand.

See how top bottom is all wrong again.
 
mentalfloss
#67
Of course it stimulates personal.

It has already done so, just not to the degree that it is on equal footing yet.

And that's fine because as I said before, this is a system change of grand proportions and it won't happen overnight. It's going to be at least another 20 years before you see some real change.
 
Angstrom
No Party Affiliation
#68
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Of course it stimulates personal.

It has already done so, just not to the degree that it is on equal footing yet.

And that's fine because as I said before, this is a system change of grand proportions and it won't happen overnight. It's going to be at least another 20 years before you see some real change.


Then let it happen in 20 years Why waste money. In 20 years the fossil fuels will be gone anyways

You just made the argument that this is just a tax grab
 
mentalfloss
#69
Quote: Originally Posted by AngstromView Post

Then let it happen in 20 years Why waste money. In 20 years the fossil fuels will be gone anyways

You just made the argument that this is just a tax grab


No, you need the investment now just to get there in 20 years.

It's absolutely necessary, and there are actually studies about the necessity to remove fossil fuel subsidies and go full throttle on renewables in order to help make that transition.

There is good value in it.
 
Walter
#70
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

No, you need the investment now just to get there in 20 years.

It's absolutely necessary, and there are actually studies about the necessity to remove fossil fuel subsidies and go full throttle on renewables in order to help make that transition.

There is good value in it.

Troll.
 
Angstrom
No Party Affiliation
#71
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

No, you need the investment now just to get there in 20 years.

It's absolutely necessary, and there are actually studies about the necessity to remove fossil fuel subsidies and go full throttle on renewables in order to help make that transition.

There is good value in it.

I don't feel that way. I feel like things will happen when they are ready to happen. To me it looks like we are trying to force something that's not ready to happen. And that when its ready, it will be the easiest thing that ever happened.

That's how I feel about it.
 
mentalfloss
#72
Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

Troll.

What?

Quote: Originally Posted by AngstromView Post

I don't feel that way. I feel like things will happen when they are ready to happen. To me it looks like we are trying to force something that's not ready to happen. And that when its ready, it will be the easiest thing that ever happened.

That's how I feel about it.

Infrastructure takes a lot of time and money.

Don't be fooled into thinking we can just flip the switch from fossil fuels to renewables.

It has to be a gradual, deliberate and controlled winding down of one system to the other to make it sustainable.
 
Angstrom
No Party Affiliation
#73
I said we are wasting resources on trying to force things, when in reality things will happen naturally without any forces, when they are ready to do so.

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

What?



Infrastructure takes a lot of time and money.

Don't be fooled into thinking we can just flip the switch from fossil fuels to renewables.

It has to be a gradual, deliberate and controlled winding down of one system to the other to make it sustainable.

I don't feel the same way then you on that. Infrastructure will only be built once there is a demand. You can't create a supply before their is a demand. I feel like your doing everything upside down.

Are you French ? That could explain this.
 
mentalfloss
#74
Quote: Originally Posted by AngstromView Post

I said we are wasting resources on trying to force things, when in reality things will happen naturally without any forces, when they are ready to do so.

And like I said, doing it 'naturally' will take too long.

Accelerating the transition to renewables can never be a waste of resources and would in fact lead to a net benefit in savings over time.


Quote: Originally Posted by AngstromView Post

I don't feel the same way then you on that. Infrastructure will only be built once there is a demand. You can't create a supply before their is a demand. I feel like your doing everything upside down.

There are already significant investments in infrastructure that will lead to eventual demand. Sooner that 'natural', but later than you are probably expecting.
 
pgs
Free Thinker
#75
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

And like I said, doing it 'naturally' will take too long.

Accelerating the transition to renewables can never be a waste of resources and would in fact lead to a net benefit in savings over time.




There are already significant investments in infrastructure that will lead to eventual demand. Sooner that 'natural', but later than you are probably expecting.

So you think our 30 million people country can support a transition into complete renewables economy , with government investment ? Do we have deep enough pockets ? !0 billion in deficit ,were will the money come from ?
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+1
#76
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Mulcair continues to be vindicated about Dutch Disease as the loonie follows the price of oil which benefits manufacturing.

He was 100% correct on that one.

Way too funny.... You're saying that a low dollar and full recession is the natural trajectory of stemming Dutch Disease?

With that sid, I'll bet there are a lot of folks in the traditional have-not provinces that would welcome Dutch Disease with open arms

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Carbon pricing is meant to reduce carbon emissions.

Look at BC who continuously reduce theirs without compromising their economy.


It's a beautiful thing.

BC hasn't reduced their emissions.... Get your fat a s s on a plane and see for yourself.
 
mentalfloss
#77
BC has reduced its carbon emissions and met its initial targets.
 
JamesBondo
+1
#78
imo, less than 2% of my driving is discretionary kms,

you can raise the price of gasoline or you can add a carbon tax, and it won't mean that I'll drive less kms to and from work.
 
mentalfloss
#79
Quote: Originally Posted by pgsView Post

So you think our 30 million people country can support a transition into complete renewables economy , with government investment ? Do we have deep enough pockets ? !0 billion in deficit ,were will the money come from ?

The bank?
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#80
Fuk off I ain't payin no fukkin carbon tax azzhole.

Ottawa needs to be sacked and it's minions marched away to northern Labrator until they freeze in the lumber camps.
 
pgs
Free Thinker
+2
#81
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

The bank?

Yes the bank of your children and grandchildren's labor .
And you say you are against slavery all the while condemning the above to a life of it .
Cheers .
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#82
Quote: Originally Posted by pgsView Post

Yes the bank of your children and grandchildren's labor .
And you say you are against slavery all the while condemning the above to a life of it .
Cheers .

You're are obviously an intelligent person. Labour rules, always and forever, you have too raise your arm and knock on the door and it will open and spill the horns capacity upon you. If you owe a bank you are a slave and you have been bred to service an account that counts because you can't.
 
petros
#83
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

BC has reduced its carbon emissions and met its initial targets.

How?

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

The bank?

The bank? Which bank(s)? Banks that make more from finite resources? Banks that ask for collateral? Banks that know NG is the fuel to burn so we can save oil for the higher dollar petro chemical and polymer industries?
 
mentalfloss
#84
https://news.gov.bc.ca/stories/bc-ac...issions-target

Bank of Canada (external - login to view)
 
JamesBondo
#85
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Adoption rate of solar energy by top US businesses grows 183% in four years : TreeHugger (external - login to view)

1183% of nothing equals...
 
Keepitsimple
+5
#86  Top Rated Post
Let's not forget that this is all predicated on the theory that increased burning of fossil fuels will cause catastrophic warming and rising oceans. Keep your eye on two things - the satellite temperature record (no warming for 18 years and counting) is one. That record is difficult to tamper with by making continuous "adjustments" or combining dubious ocean temperatures. The other thing to watch is the canary in the coalmine for rising oceans - the Florida Keys. That entire landmass is an average of only 5 to 10 feet above sea level....no signs of Armageddon yet! By the time it's proven - and evident to call - that the human contribution to Climate Change is a minor one - we will have expended trillions of dollars is transferring money to "poor" countries and our country will be littered with windmill junkyards and solar panel eyesores. Can you just imagine what those trillions COULD have been used for?


Yes - call me a skeptic.
 
Angstrom
No Party Affiliation
+2
#87
Quote: Originally Posted by KeepitsimpleView Post

Let's not forget that this is all predicated on the theory that increased burning of fossil fuels will cause catastrophic warming and rising oceans. Keep your eye on two things - the satellite temperature record (no warming for 18 years and counting) is one. That record is difficult to tamper with by making continuous "adjustments" or combining dubious ocean temperatures. The other thing to watch is the canary in the coalmine for rising oceans - the Florida Keys. That entire landmass is an average of only 5 to 10 feet above sea level....no signs of Armageddon yet! By the time it's proven - and evident to call - that the human contribution to Climate Change is a minor one - we will have expended trillions of dollars is transferring money to "poor" countries and our country will be littered with windmill junkyards and solar panel eyesores. Can you just imagine what those trillions COULD have been used for?


Yes - call me a skeptic.


Racist!!!!
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#88
A sure sign yer PM aint workin for you,. Woe and dispare in the short term, but nrxt solar period we will get pumped, nice always prevails.

Nice can and does reduce mountains to dust. All you have to do is smile.
 
EagleSmack
+2
#89
Quote: Originally Posted by KeepitsimpleView Post

The other thing to watch is the canary in the coalmine for rising oceans - the Florida Keys. That entire landmass is an average of only 5 to 10 feet above sea level....no signs of Armageddon yet!

I was JUST down in the Florida Keys and during a tour we were told land mass is actually growing and more keys are being formed due to the mangroves capturing silt and sand from tides.

Perhaps the tour guide did not get the word.

GROWING!

 
tay
#90
When you've lost the support of Bill McKibben on pollution/climate change, your toast......


Stop swooning over Justin Trudeau. The man is a disaster for the planet


Donald Trump is so spectacularly horrible that it’s hard to look away – especially now that he’s discovered bombs. But precisely because everyone’s staring gape-mouthed in his direction, other world leaders are able to get away with almost anything. Don’t believe me? Look one country north, at Justin Trudeau (external - login to view).

Look all you want, in fact – he sure is cute, the planet’s only sovereign leader who appears to have recently quit a boy band. And he’s mastered so beautifully the politics of inclusion: compassionate to immigrants, insistent on including women at every level of government. Give him great credit where it’s deserved: in lots of ways he’s the anti-Trump, and it’s no wonder Canadians swooned when he took over.

But when it comes to the defining issue of our day, climate change, he’s a brother to the old orange guy in Washington.

Not rhetorically: Trudeau says all the right things, over and over. He’s got no Scott Pruitts in his cabinet: everyone who works for him says the right things. Indeed, they specialize in getting others to say them too – it was Canadian diplomats, and the country’s environment minister, Catherine McKenna, who pushed at the Paris climate talks for a tougher-than-expected goal: holding the planet’s rise in temperature to 1.5C (2.7F).

Last month, speaking at a Houston petroleum industry gathering, he got a standing ovation from the oilmen for saying: “No country would find 173bn barrels of oil in the ground and just leave them there.”

Yes, 173bn barrels is indeed the estimate for recoverable oil in the tar sands. So let’s do some math. If Canada digs up that oil and sells it to people to burn, it will produce, according to the math whizzes at Oil Change International, 30% of the carbon necessary to take us past the 1.5C target that Canada helped set in Paris.

more

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...e_iOSApp_Other (external - login to view)
 
no new posts