They're far beyond that beatnik scene man.....
(It never ceases to amaze me what Google can come up with. The internet is a weird, weird place.)
99.999% certainty humans are driving global warming: new study
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
They're far beyond that beatnik scene man.....
(It never ceases to amaze me what Google can come up with. The internet is a weird, weird place.)
I have a question for all my environmentally conscious friends out there. Just recently Neil Young went to the TAR SANDS "Your word not mine" and demanded that the horrible effect it is having on the environment along with the indigenous people is pretty much the reason for shutting it down. I am to understand that most environmentalists want fossil fuel to become a thing of the past. So here is my question with just a tidbit of education about the North.
Cities in the north are completely dependent on diesel in the winter months along with small aboriginal communities like Rae and Edzo and numerous other native settlements. These communities are entrenched in the north and if you take away their use of fossil fuels to power their homes you will be taking away their ability to have light during a time when daylight is at a minimum.
So what's the answer?
Do we take away the ability of a poor Native community like Rae in the NWT to light and heat their homes, run their vehicles in a climate that makes it a necessity to have transport. Temperatures in these northern communities can dip as low as -70 c and this is just one community, Yellowknife and Whitehorse are cities faced with the same problems.
One of the Northern Diamond Mines tried using wind power and three years and millions of dollars after trucking the windmills north they were faced with the stark reality that this technology cannot withstand the arctic temperatures.
So, with that in mind my environmental; friends. Do we uproot these communities and bring them south? Yellowknife has a population of over 19,000. The community of Rae has a population of 1,900 and they are just one of a vast number of native communities dependent on the evils of fossil fuel.
I suppose we could shut down their power, send them back to the dark ages. Tell them to get back to basics. Along the coast we could encourage them to start whaling again to heat their oil lamps. Chew some blubber, or get back to dog sledding and park their 4X4's and snowmobiles.
You see it's really easy to sit in the comfort of our homes in Mississauga, Toronto, Vancouver or New York and preach from the pulpit about the evil tar sands and fossil fuel addiction. Really simple where you don't have to worry about freezing to death if your car breaks down or if your plumbing bursts because the pipes freeze up.
It's easy when you don't have to live here or pay for it. Guys like David Suzuki or Neil Young can jet set around and make offhanded comments about a very complex issue that isn't about greed, but survival in the north. I'm not actually expecting anyone to give me an honest answer on this one, because I know that to concede the obvious will burst the rather silly bubble.
Cities in the north are completely dependent on diesel in the winter months along with small aboriginal communities like Rae and Edzo and numerous other native settlements. These communities are entrenched in the north and if you take away their use of fossil fuels to power their homes you will be taking away their ability to have light during a time when daylight is at a minimum.
So what's the answer?
Do we take away the ability of a poor Native community like Rae in the NWT to light and heat their homes, run their vehicles in a climate that makes it a necessity to have transport. Temperatures in these northern communities can dip as low as -70 c and this is just one community, Yellowknife and Whitehorse are cities faced with the same problems.
One of the Northern Diamond Mines tried using wind power and three years and millions of dollars after trucking the windmills north they were faced with the stark reality that this technology cannot withstand the arctic temperatures.
So, with that in mind my environmental; friends. Do we uproot these communities and bring them south? Yellowknife has a population of over 19,000. The community of Rae has a population of 1,900 and they are just one of a vast number of native communities dependent on the evils of fossil fuel.
I suppose we could shut down their power, send them back to the dark ages. Tell them to get back to basics. Along the coast we could encourage them to start whaling again to heat their oil lamps. Chew some blubber, or get back to dog sledding and park their 4X4's and snowmobiles.
You see it's really easy to sit in the comfort of our homes in Mississauga, Toronto, Vancouver or New York and preach from the pulpit about the evil tar sands and fossil fuel addiction. Really simple where you don't have to worry about freezing to death if your car breaks down or if your plumbing bursts because the pipes freeze up.
It's easy when you don't have to live here or pay for it. Guys like David Suzuki or Neil Young can jet set around and make offhanded comments about a very complex issue that isn't about greed, but survival in the north. I'm not actually expecting anyone to give me an honest answer on this one, because I know that to concede the obvious will burst the rather silly bubble.
They are starting to use LNG in Inuvik, but this program is just starting and it's really expensive.
The real answer? That would be to take the entire debate out of the hands of the all or nothing extremist view points (on both sides of the aisle) and sit down and talk rationally about things like sustainability, the current realistic expectations of alternate energy sources and the practical applications for future development of alternative energy sources. It would involve acknowledging situations such as the one you mentioned of complete dependence and the severe economic hardships that radical change would bring about. It would require that all NIMBYs not have a say until they are as ready to accept the consequences of their own proposals as they are to volunteer others to accept them.
What goes on right now is not about science or the environment. It's about politics and fear mongering. And until that changes and cooler heads prevail, nothing will change. It'll just get louder.
Yes, that's true, though technically energy from combustion wouldn't need to go to zero to stop the human component from growing. Really, it depends on who you ask though, for how and when and all the actual important details. Sure, you might get some extreme folks that think it should happen like turning out a switch and all fossil fuel use should stop now. Others might take a more pragmatic approach, like when it's feasible to do so- having a National strategy for instance that would recognize Northern communities would have different challenges than say Victoria BC- and want to see more investments in technology that makes energy use more efficient, or disruptive technology that can displace other forms.
There's a pretty wide variety of opinions out there. Part of the problem as I see it, is that there actually aren't enough opinions, or rather some of those voices are dwarfed by larger mouthed folks. It would be better if there were more people with reach like Suzuki or Neil Young, giving alternative opinions on what could be done. Instead, the largest and loudest mouths argue about things like the thread title, so when it comes to discussions at high levels about what could be done, on things that actually matter- for example what to do in Northern communities- we have a lack of diversity on policy opinions even though there's plenty out there.
If you think about the types of things you hear from the policy side of things, like reducing use to some percentage of some level in some base year, like 30% below 1990 levels, or something like that, that gives us a total amount. Great, now how to do that? To me, it would make more sense to try to be as efficient with fossil fuels in places like Resolute, or Rankin Inlet as possible. Rather than saying they should turn the power off and use systems that can't work up there yet. So that would account for some portion of that total amount.
But when was the last time we heard stuff like that actually proposed and debated by key opinion leaders? Probably never.
Instead, we have musicians, journalists, and others arguing about stuff that scientists have largely moved on from. It's very unfortunate I think, because it's a huge waste of political capital. Environmentalists who won't listen to economics, and deniers who won't listen to sound science. We lose out on some important opinions there...
Here's the thing, there are initiatives being put forth. The very attempt at putting a wind farm 108 km below the arctic circle is evidence of such initiatives; even if it was a failed initiative. Yellowknife has a dam in Prosperous Lake, but that dam is co_k stiff frozen during the winter months. Right now I'm in Yellowknife and guess what? It was snowing this morning.
I am of the belief that we should seek alternative energy, but it has to be sound science and sustainable. Ontario's failed wind program is a testament to poorly thought out programs for political expedience.
The issue is extremely complex and there are people working on it. What we need is a lot less propaganda and rhetoric and serious discussion. And a bit of honesty wouldn't hurt either.
I am of the belief that we should seek alternative energy, but it has to be sound science and sustainable. Ontario's failed wind program is a testament to poorly thought out programs for political expedience.
The issue is extremely complex and there are people working on it. What we need is a lot less propaganda and rhetoric and serious discussion. And a bit of honesty wouldn't hurt either.
