You may have read the words in his post, but you certainly didn't get the gist of what he said.
I don't think anyone in this or any other thread has said we should stay addicted to fossil fuels.
Not even the person you asked.
Oil Sand Myths
- Thread starter Redmonton_Rebel
- Start date
Not even the person you asked.
So where do I find these really old fellas and gals that must be wandering around? :lol:
Positives and negatives of Global Warming. If you squint you may find the positives.
Positives and negatives of global warming
NRDC predicts 150,000 deaths due to Global Warming.
And that is just in the USA.
Laurel Whitney | NRDC Report Predicts 150,000 Heat-Related Deaths Due To Climate Change
Positives and negatives of global warming
NRDC predicts 150,000 deaths due to Global Warming.
And that is just in the USA.
Laurel Whitney | NRDC Report Predicts 150,000 Heat-Related Deaths Due To Climate Change
This isn't the "measure your testicles here" thread, I was trying to discuss probably the most important issue that faces us today, and one that for poliitical and economic reasons we're not really talking about in Canada.
I'd rather not be discussing it at all, and I sure as hell would be happier if more people took it seriously. The possible ecological collapse that could very well take all of us with it should be something we'd all want a responsible reaction to.
No, I get it, I just don't care. Anyone who spends time talking about comfort in a situation where we're more and more presented with a situation of mere survival is so far off topic it's ridiculous.
Then what the hell are you arguing for?
...and I was testing your logical skills to see if you were any more intelligent than your opposite extreme
Yes, they remove the monolithic, fossil fuels/financial sector/conservative block in our bowels.
Some other fun facts about tar sands oil:
One upgrader plant can put about 1 MILLION tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. One coal fired power plant providing power to the upgrader can put over 3 MILLION tons, together equivalent to about 3 million cars. Before it's even made it to the refinery tar sands synthetic crude is already one of the most polluting source of energy on the planet. It's high mineral content also means it produces about 50% more CO2 during refining than does light crude and the abrasive minerals it contains wears out machinery much faster. That's all before it's even burned in cars producing even more CO2 pollution.
With the massive habitat destruction and creation of the worlds largest toxic waste site in the Athabasca region, it's hard to think of a worse way to provide energy for our future. Over 200 billion dollars has been invested in the worlds largest capital project in Alberta's northeast, the oil companies are going to get richer, the people associated with them are going to their slice of the pie, like Steven Harper son of an Imperial Oil employee and a former Imperial Oil employee himself, and as usual we're going to be left with the cleanup.
There are alternatives that could have benefited hugely from the kind of investment put into turning northeast Alberta into a wasteland and substancially driving up atmosphere CO2 concentration...but that would have meant challenging the virtual economic monopoly the fossil fuel sector enjoys.
We've got things like:
- Solar roof tiles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_shingles
- Roll to print solar technology that allows much greater flexibility in designing materials to produce power from sunlight:http://www.nanosolar.com/technology
- Processes that would allow the petro-chemical industry to go truly green like:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization
and other porcesses that replicate in hours the process of converting long-chain hydrocarbons to short-chain products suitable for refining that takes nature millions of years.
- Wind and tidal power.
- Biofuels:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel
That use waste products not food as one poster here was trying to claim.
- Geothermal:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_electricity
Which can provide virtually inlimited power.
- Solar water heaters:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_water_heating
- Thermal mass heating and natural lighting for homes and businesses.
There's so much more we could do and we'd create a dynamic new economy that would be vastly more independent and competitive than the current closed shop that now exists with one of the largest monopolies in our history.
Last edited:
An old bull and a young bull were standing on a hill looking down on a valley full of cows. “Hey”, says the young bull. “Let’s run down and enjoy one of those cows…”
“No”, says the old bull. “Let’s walk down and enjoy them all.”
“No”, says the old bull. “Let’s walk down and enjoy them all.”
The most important issue facing us today is probably the one that the most people are trying to do something about. Gas is $1.25 a litre here and still selling like hotcakes!
Right, you've got nothing real to offer to the discussion so why not play even more mind games?
It's not like this is important or anything, talk about fiddling while Rome burns.
Pithy.
And entirely pointless.
Ask them...if you can find them in the political wilderness.
You know you're right, people secretly love being held over the proverbial barrel by the fossil fuel sector.
To get something you often need to give up something, in this case to get an entirely new sustainable energy economy it means the fossil fuel sector giving up it's virtual monopoly which is what most of the whining is about.
I heard that one about 40 years ago, but I don't recall the word "enjoy" ! :smile:
You mean holding them accoutable the way we're supposed to in a democracy?
The Conservatives are one of the least democractic governments we've ever had and blocked any meaningful actions on this issue, it's full speed ahead and forget any real debate on tar sands development. Look what a joke you and others treat it as here.
In our name the Conservative government is also going abroad and doing the same thing at international forums.
Canada Wins Fossil of the Year Award in Durban – Climate Action Network Canada
Based on the science, continuing massive releases of greenhouse gases by human activities is going to eventually have catastrophic consequences, they can already be considered disasterous in many cases. What the Conservatives are doing is along the same lines the federal government did on the Atlantic cod fisheries, letting industry set the restrictions(basically none) until the species was commerically extinct. What's going on now with climate change doesn't just affect a relatively limited fish stock, it's driving the global climate into a new and hotter state with little or no certainty if we'll even be able to survive the resulting predicted massive species loss. We're already looking at losing tens or even hundreds of thousands of species over the next century, at what point does that include us.
The whole point in having a democracy is citizen input, what we have isn't even close to that. Steven Harper and his government have closed down all the avenues to access to information they could and undercut the electoral system to the greatest degree they could and still avoid a massive backlash. Unless we want on a global environment system scale what happened to the Atlantic Cod fisheries then we'd better do something fast. People didn't listen to the inshore fishermen as they complained for years about diminishing catches, some very qualified people have been warning about the risks of uncontrolled release of CO2 and other greenhouse gases as well as other activities that alter the radiative forcing. We can listen or burn, considering that our current PM is of the personal belief due to his religion that might not be such a bad thing we should be very concerned.
And they have to "compete" with companies like ExxonMobil which is a leftover from the monopoly created by Standard Oil, as is Chevron. There's not a lot of real competition in the oil business.
We can continue to take the path of least resistance when it comes to the energy and financial sector, basically we're in a free-fall right now in terms of legislation and political control over the fossil fuel sector. The thing about free-fall is you only get the sensation of freedom...until you hit the ground.
Based on the best science the ground is rapidly approaching and instead of pulling the rip-cord, our government is telling us we need to assume a more aerodynamic pose to speed things up. They want us to focus solely on short-term economic gains and not at all on long-term social, economic and environmental losses that promise to be historic in scale.
BTW my intent isn't to say we need to limit human development, it's to say we can and must direct it in a way where we don't destroy ourselves...
Last edited: