Canada Failing to Put Climate Change Plans in Action


EagleSmack
+4
#1
Federal government failing to put climate plan into action, environmental watchdog finds - Politics - CBC News

Well is anyone really shocked? It's simply not a big deal.
 
mentalfloss
+1
#2
So glad that you support the new pipeline cancellations that put us back on track.
Last edited by mentalfloss; Oct 6th, 2017 at 09:48 AM..
 
EagleSmack
+2
#3
 
mentalfloss
#4
Your article is before the latest pipeline cancellations which environmentalists are happy about because it greatly reduces carbon emissions.

They thank you for your support in their cause.
 
DaSleeper
+3
#5
More Flossy bullshit...........

Oil is normally transported by one of four options:
  • Pipeline – the most commonly used form of oil transportation is through oil pipelines. Pipelines are typically used to move crude oil from the wellhead to gathering and processing facilities and from there to refineries and tanker loading facilities. Pipelines require significantly less energy to operate than trucks or rail and have a lower carbon footprint.
  • Rail – Oil shipment by train has become a growing phenomenon as new oil reserves are identified across the globe. The relatively small capital costs and construction period make rail transport an ideal alternative to pipelines for long distance shipping. However speed, carbon emissions and accidents are some significant drawbacks to rail transport.
  • Truck – while the most limited oil transportation method in terms of storage capacity, trucks have the greatest flexibility in potential destinations. Trucks are often the last step in the transport process, delivering oil and refined petroleum products to their intended storage destinations.
  • Ship – where oil transport over land is not suitable, oil can be transported by ship. A typical 30,000-barrel tank barge can carry the equivalent of 45 rail tank cars at about one-third the cost. Compared to a pipeline, barges are cheaper by 20-35%, depending on the route. Tank barges traditionally carry petrochemicals and natural gas feedstocks to chemical plants. The drawbacks are typically speed and environmental concerns.
https://www.studentenergy.org/topics/ff-transport
 
mentalfloss
#6
Yes we already know we have enough oil, so pulling a pipeline doesn't mean increasing other methods of transport.

We already know that.
 
EagleSmack
+2
#7
Looks like Canada is sticking to trucks and trains. As the article clearly states, the Trudeau Govt. is failing to keep to its climate change commitments.

But seriously... did anyone believe that they would?
 
MHz
+1
#8
Good that he bailed, that will ensure he has a 2nd term.
 
pgs
Free Thinker
+3
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

Your article is before the latest pipeline cancellations which environmentalists are happy about because it greatly reduces carbon emissions.

They thank you for your support in their cause.

How does transporting oil by tankers both land ( rail cars ) or sea ( ocean freighters ) reduce carbon emissions ?
Does the same amount of oil not get used in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes ? Do the oil tankers not create more GHG's than pipelines .Please explain how this reduces carbon emissions ?
 
DaSleeper
+3
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by pgs View Post

How does transporting oil by tankers both land ( rail cars ) or sea ( ocean freighters ) reduce carbon emissions ?
Does the same amount of oil not get used in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes ? Do the oil tankers not create more GHG's than pipelines .Please explain how this reduces carbon emissions ?

He can't!
 
EagleSmack
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by pgs View Post

How does transporting oil by tankers both land ( rail cars ) or sea ( ocean freighters ) reduce carbon emissions ?
Does the same amount of oil not get used in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes ? Do the oil tankers not create more GHG's than pipelines .Please explain how this reduces carbon emissions ?

Good luck trying to get an answer from him on this!

You completely crushed him already.
 
mentalfloss
#12
Already answered my furry neanderthals.


Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

Looks like Canada is sticking to trucks and trains. As the article clearly states, the Trudeau Govt. is failing to keep to its climate change commitments.

But seriously... did anyone believe that they would?

Quote: Originally Posted by pgs View Post

How does transporting oil by tankers both land ( rail cars ) or sea ( ocean freighters ) reduce carbon emissions ?
Does the same amount of oil not get used in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes ? Do the oil tankers not create more GHG's than pipelines .Please explain how this reduces carbon emissions ?

....

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

Yes we already know we have enough oil, so pulling a pipeline doesn't mean increasing other methods of transport.

We already know that.

 
EagleSmack
+4
#13
Silly fool... as Canada's population increases more fossil fuels will be needed. Therefore more road, rail, and water transport is needed. That means an increase of carbon emissions.

*snicker*
 
DaSleeper
+2
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

Silly fool... as Canada's population increases more fossil fuels will be needed. Therefore more road, rail, and water transport is needed. That means an increase of carbon emissions.

*snicker*

Common sense doesn't come easy to an ideologue!
 
mentalfloss
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

Silly fool... as Canada's population increases more fossil fuels will be needed. Therefore more road, rail, and water transport is needed. That means an increase of carbon emissions.

*snicker*

Poor fear mongerer - we'll be fine.

Canada produces more oil than it can consume.

Oil Supply and Demand | Natural Resources Canada
 
Jinentonix
No Party Affiliation
+3
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

Already answered my furry neanderthals.






....

No you didn't. The pipeline would take us off foreign oil. How is relying on Saudi Arabia to supply eastern Canada helping anything or anyone but the Saudis? Are you seriously trying to suggest that a pipeline to eastern Canada would create more emissions than supertankers from the Middle East already generate? A pipeline would reduce our gross GHG emissions, not increase them.

Oh, and your "logic" that no pipeline doesn't translate into increased oil traffic via other methods is seriously flawed. Firstly if, as you argue, we already produce enough oil to supply ourselves, why are we still importing Saudi oil? Secondly, a pipeline would also reduce GHGs from transporting oil across the country via rail and truck. Is this not your big f*cking concern in life, reducing GHGs? Tell us how not having an eastern flow pipeline will reduce our GHG emissions. I can't wait to hear this one.
 
TenPenny
+1
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by Jinentonix View Post

. How is relying on Saudi Arabia to supply eastern Canada helping anything or anyone but the Saudis? .



We don't really 'rely' on Saudi Arabia, since only 11% of our oil imports come from there.
 
pgs
Free Thinker
+4
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPenny View Post

We don't really 'rely' on Saudi Arabia, since only 11% of our oil imports come from there.

Hmmmn let me cut your buying power by 11% and tell you it is all fine .
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+3
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

Silly fool... as Canada's population increases more fossil fuels will be needed. Therefore more road, rail, and water transport is needed. That means an increase of carbon emissions.

*snicker*

That's where you're wrong!

Tater tot made careful calculations and elected to only allow low emission, carbon-free immigrants to enter Canada.

Pretty smrt, right?
 
mentalfloss
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPenny View Post

We don't really 'rely' on Saudi Arabia, since only 11% of our oil imports come from there.

But Ezra man!!


EZRA

Quote: Originally Posted by pgs View Post

Hmmmn let me cut your buying power by 11% and tell you it is all fine .

We already did that.

It's fine.
 
EagleSmack
+2
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

Poor fear mongerer - we'll be fine.

Canada produces more oil than it can consume.

Oil Supply and Demand | Natural Resources Canada

Of course you'll be fine.

I am glad you finally came around to Climate Change being a hoax.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
+2
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

Of course you'll be fine.

I am glad you finally came around to Climate Change being a hoax.

Hoax is not really the right word to describe premeditaded global mass murder.
 
Mowich
Conservative
+3
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

Your article is before the latest pipeline cancellations which environmentalists are happy about because it greatly reduces carbon emissions.

They thank you for your support in their cause.

So stupid you. The oil will still be transported. Unfortunately, it will travel by rail ............and we all know how well that worked for the Lac-Mégantic folks. But then, I wouldn't expect someone of your low intelligence to take that into consideration.

Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

Looks like Canada is sticking to trucks and trains. As the article clearly states, the Trudeau Govt. is failing to keep to its climate change commitments.

But seriously... did anyone believe that they would?

Nope.
 
relic
Free Thinker
+1 / -1
#24
You ****ing ****servative morons,just what,int the years that the torys were in charge under your hero steve,did they do about either pipelines or the environment ?
 
EagleSmack
+4
#25
Now that folks is what happens when a liberal becomes unhinged.
 
MHz
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by pgs View Post

How does transporting oil by tankers both land ( rail cars ) or sea ( ocean freighters ) reduce carbon emissions ?
Does the same amount of oil not get used in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes ? Do the oil tankers not create more GHG's than pipelines .Please explain how this reduces carbon emissions ?

It doesn't, what it does do is move around who gets paid for moving it. Rail cars and ships would need a different destination. Shipping LNG to South America would make more money if they were located on the West Coast as the loaded ships are going with the current.

BTW the Gulf Stream that makes the weather in NW Europe is most likely where the heat from the Mid-Atlanic Rift finally reaches the surface rather than the cold rising water off the West Coast of Africa has enough time to collect enough heat to do that king of warming. Hurricanes start losing heat as soon as they start going north along the East Coast of the US so all the heat gained should be lost long before it could do the warming it is supposed to be doing.
 
Angstrom
No Party Affiliation
+2
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

Federal government failing to put climate plan into action, environmental watchdog finds - Politics - CBC News

Well is anyone really shocked? It's simply not a big deal.

It’s all talk no action, As usual. Just like the people he represents.
 
relic
Free Thinker
+1 / -1
#28
But I notice there's no answer,no batch of links about all the great things the torys did for the environment or for promoting pipelines. That's because they did **** all.
 
MHz
#29
Fixing something that is not broken never works out for the better, it doesn't matter who you are.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+5
#30  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

Now that folks is what happens when a liberal becomes unhinged.

Canada's libtard population is well known, World renown in fact, for their lack of intelligence coupled with emotional volatility

Quote: Originally Posted by relic View Post

But I notice there's no answer,no batch of links about all the great things the torys did for the environment or for promoting pipelines. That's because they did **** all.

... And exactly what has tater tot got done on either file?