It's Climate Change I tell'ya!! IT'S CLIMATE CHANGE!!

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
57,947
8,265
113
Washington DC
And there's a big difference between "pollution" and the so-called "climate change" which is stated as causing "pollution" when in fact, CO2 is necessary for ALL life. For me, that's the difference! One is definitely solvable, the other, not so much.
"CO2 is necessary for all life" is a cheap, facile avoidance of the question. Vitamin A is also necessary for life, and if you overdose on it, it'll kill ya.

Water is necessary for all life. But try breathing it.

And I didn't say pollution isn't different from climate change. I said that anti-pollution measures almost always reduce GHG emissions as well.
 

Dixie Cup

Senate Member
Sep 16, 2006
5,997
3,786
113
Edmonton
"CO2 is necessary for all life" is a cheap, facile avoidance of the question. Vitamin A is also necessary for life, and if you overdose on it, it'll kill ya.

Water is necessary for all life. But try breathing it.

And I didn't say pollution isn't different from climate change. I said that anti-pollution measures almost always reduce GHG emissions as well.
MY point is that CO2 is necessary - period. that's it.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
112,992
12,695
113
Low Earth Orbit
And there's a big difference between "pollution" and the so-called "climate change" which is stated as causing "pollution" when in fact, CO2 is necessary for ALL life. For me, that's the difference! One is definitely solvable, the other, not so much.
In the end O2 will rise too.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
112,992
12,695
113
Low Earth Orbit
MY point is that CO2 is necessary - period. that's it.
Thank you. Any more statements of the obvious you want to bless us with?
2000ppm CO2 in the Triassic when giant reptiles roamed an earth covered in mega flora from top to bottom. Dinosaurs didnt need to eat hay in winter.

The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere reached 427 ppm (0.04%) in 2024.[1] This is an increase of 50% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, up from 280 ppm during the 10,000 years prior to the mid-18th century.

How far south do you have to go for animals to graze year round?

Plants start dieing off under 200ppm. 200 years ago the earth was 80 fucking ppm from a mass exinction event.

Think aboot that a few minutes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ron in Regina

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
57,947
8,265
113
Washington DC
2000ppm CO2 in the Triassic when giant reptiles roamed an earth covered in mega flora from top to bottom. Dinosaurs didnt need to eat hay in winter.

The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere reached 427 ppm (0.04%) in 2024.[1] This is an increase of 50% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, up from 280 ppm during the 10,000 years prior to the mid-18th century.

How far south do you have to go for animals to graze year round?

Plants start dieing off under 200ppm. 200 years ago the earth was 80 fucking ppm from a mass exinction event.

Think aboot that a few minutes.
OK, I did.
 

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
37,484
3,271
113
How global warming fried the Trudeau Liberals

Author of the article:Lorrie Goldstein
Published Nov 09, 2024 • 4 minute read

Ever since coming to power in 2015, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the Liberals have fervently believed their climate change and carbon tax policies would make the Conservatives unelectable, as long as Canada’s official opposition party refused to come up with its own plan.


For a time they were right. After all, if you didn’t care about reducing Canada’s industrial greenhouse gas emissions to save the planet — as the Liberals would allege whenever anyone criticized their policy — what kind of a climate-denying, planet-destroying dinosaur were you?

But what the Liberals didn’t anticipate was that their absurd justification of their climate policies — that Canadians paying higher taxes for gasoline and heating their homes in winter would prevent flooding and hurricanes not just in Canada, but globally — would eventually collapse under its own weight.

That’s because at 1.5% of global emissions nothing Canada does can materially impact climate change.

We could reduce our emissions to net zero tomorrow and it would have no effect, while countries like China and India continue to drive up global emissions primarily by burning coal — the most carbon intensive fossil fuel — to produce electricity.


Given a choice between not having a climate policy and having one with no discernible impact on climate change, while making life more expensive for everyone and throwing into doubt the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of Canadians employed in Canada’s oil and gas sector, a growing number of Canadians have chosen option “a”.

While some reject the science of climate change, a much larger group simply believes that paying more in taxes is not going to save the planet, a view bolstered by a report released by federal environment commissioner Jerry DeMarco last week that audited the Liberals’ Canadian Net Zero Emissions Accountability Act.

It concluded that the Liberal government’s lack of transparency in implementing this legislation makes it impossible for the average citizen to understand, much less believe, the Trudeau government’s claim it will reduce Canada’s emissions by 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030, on the way to net zero by 2050.


The government says that the 149 measures contained in its approach to addressing climate change will achieve a 36.2% reduction in emissions compared to 2005 levels by 2030, implying that all that is needed is a final push to reach at least 40%.

But this claim is nonsense based on DeMarco’s finding that to achieve the 40% minimum target will require huge increases in annual emission cuts in the next six years, which the government has come nowhere close to achieving in the past nine years.

As of 2022, the latest year for which government data are available, Canada’s emission were 7.1% below 2005 levels, meaning it has achieved 17.8% of its minimum target in nine years and now has six to achieve the remaining 82.8%.

DeMarco said while reaching the 40% to 45% reduction target is still achievable and should be pursued, his own findings indicate why it is all but impossible to believe this will happen.


For example, when DeMarco’s auditors examined 20 of the government’s 149 measures to reduce emissions, it found only nine were on track to achieve their goals, while nine others were faced with challenges and two had encountered significant barriers, such as delays in setting and meeting milestone targets.

When the audit examined 32 additional reduction measures which the government claimed will help boost emission reductions from 36.2% to at least 40% by 2030, it found only seven were new, while 22 were existing measures that had already been reported. The remaining three were enhancements of existing measures.

The audit found examples where two different government programs were funding the same projects and reporting the same expected emission reductions, raising the possibility of double counting actual reductions.


DeMarco also had concerns about the computer modelling used to estimate emission reductions of various government programs, noting they weren’t updated in 2023 compared to 2022 and that some of the initial calculations were overly optimistic.

In addition, “recent decreases to projected 2030 emissions were not due to climate action taken by governments, but were instead because of revisions to the data used in modelling.”

DeMarco was also surprised by the lack of transparency and consistency across the government in assessing whether taxpayers were getting good value for money spent in reducing emissions, the costs of which it has previously reported at more than $200 billion for federal taxpayers alone.

On the issue of value for money, DeMarco found that Canada was the worst performer at lowering emissions among the G7 nations to which it belongs, including the U.S., which, unlike Canada, has never imposed a national carbon tax on its citizens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dixie Cup

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
112,992
12,695
113
Low Earth Orbit
She didn’t “choose” to be any degree of autistic, as opposed to the other two things. Do those three things fit together?
Mental health and diet are symbiotic. Greta stunted herself physically, mentally, emotionally and spititually by not eating in her pubescent phase.

A self-induced N. Korean brainwashed physically, mentally, emotionally and ideologically.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
25,974
9,458
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Would that be like people who don't "choose" to be gay? Or is that different?
No, that’s right on track. Homosexuals don’t choose to be gay…but some do choose to cross dress & have trans/story-time at the public Library with other peoples children…but that’s a different story.

Anyway, climate change, or at least the taxing for climate change. With president-elect Donald Trump taking office on Jan. 20, it’s a given the U.S. won’t impose a national carbon tax on American industries and may pull out of the UN’s 2015 Paris climate agreement, as he did the first time he was president.

By contrast, Trudeau’s carbon tax, which increased the cost of gasoline, home heating fuel and 20 other forms of fossil fuel energy, started at $20 per tonne of emissions in 2019.

Today it’s $80 per tonne, rising to $95 per tonne on April 1, 2025 and will continue increasing annually until 2030 when it hits $170 per tonne.

The Trudeau government says this will help Canada reduce its emissions to at least 40% below 2005 levels by 2030.

But that’s unlikely given that, as of 2022, the last year for which government data are available, Canada’s emissions were just 7.1% below 2005 levels. This means the Trudeau government has achieved just 17.8% of its minimum target of a 40% reduction in nine years and now has just six to achieve the remaining 82.8%…& the Liberals are toast. Done like dinner.

One thing the Trudeau government won’t be boasting about as Canada’s delegation heads to the United Nations’ annual global gabfest on climate change in Baku, Azerbaijan, is that after nine years in power, Canada has the worst record of any G7 country in lowering greenhouse gas emissions.

That’s worse than the U.K., Germany, France, Italy, Japan and most significantly, the U.S., our largest trading partner, which has never had a national carbon tax, unlike Canada, where Prime Minister Justin Trudeau imposed one in 2019. Oh well…

In the real world, Canada will always have high per-capita emissions because we’re the coldest and second-largest country on earth with a small population and a resource-based economy.

The question the Trudeau government should answer is why Canada has a national carbon tax when our largest trading partner doesn’t — and has a better record of reducing emissions than us?
 

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
27,661
7,486
113
B.C.
No, that’s right on track. Homosexuals don’t choose to be gay…but some do choose to cross dress & have trans/story-time at the public Library with other peoples children…but that’s a different story.

Anyway, climate change, or at least the taxing for climate change. With president-elect Donald Trump taking office on Jan. 20, it’s a given the U.S. won’t impose a national carbon tax on American industries and may pull out of the UN’s 2015 Paris climate agreement, as he did the first time he was president.

By contrast, Trudeau’s carbon tax, which increased the cost of gasoline, home heating fuel and 20 other forms of fossil fuel energy, started at $20 per tonne of emissions in 2019.

Today it’s $80 per tonne, rising to $95 per tonne on April 1, 2025 and will continue increasing annually until 2030 when it hits $170 per tonne.

The Trudeau government says this will help Canada reduce its emissions to at least 40% below 2005 levels by 2030.

But that’s unlikely given that, as of 2022, the last year for which government data are available, Canada’s emissions were just 7.1% below 2005 levels. This means the Trudeau government has achieved just 17.8% of its minimum target of a 40% reduction in nine years and now has just six to achieve the remaining 82.8%…& the Liberals are toast. Done like dinner.

One thing the Trudeau government won’t be boasting about as Canada’s delegation heads to the United Nations’ annual global gabfest on climate change in Baku, Azerbaijan, is that after nine years in power, Canada has the worst record of any G7 country in lowering greenhouse gas emissions.

That’s worse than the U.K., Germany, France, Italy, Japan and most significantly, the U.S., our largest trading partner, which has never had a national carbon tax, unlike Canada, where Prime Minister Justin Trudeau imposed one in 2019. Oh well…

In the real world, Canada will always have high per-capita emissions because we’re the coldest and second-largest country on earth with a small population and a resource-based economy.

The question the Trudeau government should answer is why Canada has a national carbon tax when our largest trading partner doesn’t — and has a better record of reducing emissions than us?
Pretty hard to reduce emissions and grow population at the same time .
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
25,974
9,458
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
As COP29 — the United Nations’ annual climate change summit — gets underway in Baku, Azerbaijan
1731783061080.jpegCanadians may notice that their government isn’t broadcasting their participation to quite the same extent as in prior years.
1731783111532.jpeg
Now, carbon pricing is one of the most singularly unpopular issues for the Liberal government, and this is the third year in a row that Trudeau won’t be personally attending the summit, which is taking place from Nov. 11 to 22.
1731783426130.jpeg
Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault showed up promising to hand out more than $1 billion in climate-related foreign aid, and Canada has built an entire pavilion at the conference holding workshops ranging from Addressing Climate Disasters with Equity to Inspiring Change Through Global Children’s Perspectives.
1731783470594.jpeg
Press coverage of UN climate change conferences often end up rallying around a central number. At the Paris Climate Talks, for instance, the goal was summed up as limiting temperature increases to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels.
But….this time around, the main number is a monetary figure: US$1 trillion. That’s one of the suggested targets for the new collective quantified goal (NCQG); essentially a giant pool of money provided by rich countries to finance the climate mitigation efforts of poor countries.
1731784235154.jpeg
Only a few years ago, Canada was routinely sending one of the largest delegations to UN climate change conferences. In 2015, Canada sent 283 delegates to Paris; a contingent that was double the size of the American team, and triple the size of the United Kingdom’s. Canada is sending about 370 people to Baku.
 
  • Angry
Reactions: Dixie Cup

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
27,661
7,486
113
B.C.
As COP29 — the United Nations’ annual climate change summit — gets underway in Baku, Azerbaijan
View attachment 25725Canadians may notice that their government isn’t broadcasting their participation to quite the same extent as in prior years.
View attachment 25727
Now, carbon pricing is one of the most singularly unpopular issues for the Liberal government, and this is the third year in a row that Trudeau won’t be personally attending the summit, which is taking place from Nov. 11 to 22.
View attachment 25728
Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault showed up promising to hand out more than $1 billion in climate-related foreign aid, and Canada has built an entire pavilion at the conference holding workshops ranging from Addressing Climate Disasters with Equity to Inspiring Change Through Global Children’s Perspectives.
View attachment 25729
Press coverage of UN climate change conferences often end up rallying around a central number. At the Paris Climate Talks, for instance, the goal was summed up as limiting temperature increases to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels.
But….this time around, the main number is a monetary figure: US$1 trillion. That’s one of the suggested targets for the new collective quantified goal (NCQG); essentially a giant pool of money provided by rich countries to finance the climate mitigation efforts of poor countries.
View attachment 25730
Only a few years ago, Canada was routinely sending one of the largest delegations to UN climate change conferences. In 2015, Canada sent 283 delegates to Paris; a contingent that was double the size of the American team, and triple the size of the United Kingdom’s. Canada is sending about 370 people to Baku.
Free holidays compliments of the Canadian taxpayer . I hear they are avoiding the vegan buffet .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Taxslave2

55Mercury

rigid member
May 31, 2007
4,379
1,054
113
"COP29?" Sounds like the latest hard-hitting police drama, featuring two tough-but-vulnerable partners and a racially and gender diverse supporting cast.

Set in Chicago, filmed in Toronto.
Libby Chow will be sporting blackface as she plays the Chicago mayor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: petros