What to do about global warming

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
Cool. Our seizes what you have, & then fines you (not a little fine either).

With about five decades of stuff out there, I'm assuming there's a figurative
goldmine of raw materials and recyclable items out there for many
entrepreneurs. This won't solve the worlds problems, but it isn't going to
hurt it further I'd assume.
It'd be one small step for entrepreneur and a giant leap for Regina. :D

Waits to see if evidence that inactivity will make anything better.

"Try by doing what?"
Flight was considered an impossibility at one time, along with getting far enough as the moon, but after lots of failures, people are zooming all over the planet in flying machines and some are in space.
But we better not even try to quit polluting. :roll:
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
Is something wrong with you? Try walking instead of driving the two blocks to the corner store, take the bus more often, car pool, mow the lawn once a week instead of twice a week, convert your vehicle to electric or hybrid, quit idling the car so much, recycle and reuse a lot more, get digital subscriptions instead of hardcopy subscriptions to catalogs and magazines, get used to turning the thermostats down when in bed or away, get LED lamps for lighting your house and turn off unused lighting, cut food waste, reduce stress on power companies by adding a couple solar panels to your roof, solar heat your swimming pool, become healthier so you don't need more oxygen to replace the amount your body wastes, grow your own food, eat local foods, cut your consumption of red meats, use latex paints instead of oil-based ones, make sure your vehicle's are running as efficiently as possible, seal draft leaks in your home, keep your fridge and freezer more full, cut your bathtime and showertime by a couple minutes, drop the water heater to 120 or 130°, insulate hot water pipes, plan shopping trips so you use your vehicle more efficiently, use reusable bags when shopping, pressure your gov't reps to make gov't more efficient in energy usage, same for any companies you have a connection with, etc. etc. etc.

We're talking about reducing global emissions by 80%. Can you demonstrate what percentage global emissions would be reduced if everyone did those?

I wonder if you're comprehending the scope of the challenge. Reducing Canadas emissions 80% would be the equivalent of shutting down all industry, manufacturing, agriculture and transportation. Except for the little automotive things you mentioned, all the rest fall into the remaining 20%. How on earth could that ever be expected to achieve an 80% reduction?

Irrelevant. I did not say to try attempting to adapt to Kyoto or the Carbon trading nonsense, etc. I simply said try something. So in your river crossing instance, I would try the most efficient method I could to try crossing the river even if it meant ignoring the rope and hook.
You seem to have missed the analogy. The rope and hook are the only way you have of crossing. If you ignore it you do nothing, unless you try to develop some superior technology (boat). Everything we can do now in regards to replacing fossil fuels is nowhere near enought to reduce emissions by the required 80% (that would be the rope and hook). Should we waste resources trying anyway, knowing the effort is futile, or should we look for new tech (boat) that will actually work?


Like I said, hubby and I did not simply go out and buy a complete solar collection system. We aren't rich. We made whatever parts we could. We quit thinking like consumers quite a while ago.
I commend you. However you still are consumers and dependant on the energy economy.

So we should just forget everything and keep screwing up the atmosphere and the planet. I see. We can't think of better ways to live. I see. We can't take a good idea and figure out how to make it work. I see. Nice attitude you have there.
Now you're reminding me of SJP and Avro. How does it benefit the atmosphere and planet if our expenditure of vast resources has no effect? Would the planet be better off than if we did nothing? Absolutely not. Yes we can think of better ways to live, we do it all the time. Yes we can take a good idea and figure out how to make it work, that would be Lomborg's attitude.

Flight was considered an impossibility at one time, along with getting far enough as the moon, but after lots of failures, people are zooming all over the planet in flying machines and some are in space.
But we better not even try to quit polluting. :roll:
So when flight was considered impossible, did people try by jumping off buildings and flapping their arms, knowing all the while that it wouldn't work?

No, they ignored such useless efforts and concentrated on developing the technology that would actually work. Lomborg's attitude again.

How would you know until each of us makes the attempt? Prove your claim.
I gave a pretty good list of stuff people can do earlier, if people actually did those things, they'd save money for themselves and cut a lot of pollution.
Your alternative just sucks.

Like I said, prove your claim. All those little things I mentioned can add up to quite a pile of change and it takes so little effort for the return you can see, it's just stupid why people don't even try.
Prove my claim? It's self evident. See above. Those little things don't even add up the the 20%. let alone the 80%.
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
52
Oshawa
Anna:

Extra is here for one purpose.

To feed his ego.

He failed at his attempt to prove AGW isn't happening now he has taken it to the next level.

I suppose the next line of though will be "why stop Global warming. I'd like it to be warm in December".:roll:
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
A lot of writing there old chap.

It still dosen't answer the question I asked.

What would you do about AGW?

I will be happy to exchange ideas if that is the purpose of the thread....if not change the title.

Take care.
See? I told you so!

Still dodging the question, just like I said you would!:lol:

Anna:

Extra is here for one purpose.

To feed his ego.

He failed at his attempt to prove AGW isn't happening now he has taken it to the next level.

I suppose the next line of though will be "why stop Global warming. I'd like it to be warm in December".:roll:
Now you seem to be concerned because others are attempting and failing.

You want Anna to dodge the question too?
 

herald

Electoral Member
Jul 16, 2006
259
1
18
When Jesus comes, He will burn up the whole earth and the heaven: talk about global warming!!!!!!
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
Warmer air is steamier air - air that reflects away sunlight. How long does an ice age last? I doubt if me ... or my grandkids ... or even their great to the power of ten grandkids will be around to see it.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,097
4,222
113
Vancouver Island

The same kind of mentality was in evidence when the greenies were protesting logging. Some dumb hippie said that all the displaced loggers could earn a living picking wild flowers.
Many places are trying to jump on the green bandwagon, most won't make it but they will kill off the traditional jobs. California's version is to legalize pot so they can tax it.
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
Waits to see if evidence that inactivity will make anything better.

"Try by doing what?"
I have determined that there is no evidence that inactivity will have any beneficial effect in stopping AGW.

Obviously that's no help.

But, all those efforts, all that money spent, the effect of that on AGW is..........the same.

I'm sorry but I fail to see any advantage to spending all that effort and money to achieve no results on AGW.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,097
4,222
113
Vancouver Island
Like Petros, I'm also in Regina, & I can say that garbage hill was by far the
largest thing on the horizon....back in the '70's, & it hasn't gotten any smaller
in the last 30+ years.

The irony here, when I look at the above comments, is that it's illegal to remove
anything from the Garbage Dump here in Regina. I don't know if that's the same
elsewhere as I've never looked into that. Recycle, Reduce, Re-use, but not from
the Dump in Regina it seems...

Same most places. Although Manaimo Regional District and several others on the island do sort metal from garbage and sell it to the scrap yard. They are just starting on a domestic food scrap recycling program. Don't know which fast food joint gets the scraps.
One of the RDs had a sort of recycling program in that there was an area in the dump where you could put items no longer wanted but still usable and every one could pick through it.I believe the liability problem is what cancelled that.

I have determined that there is no evidence that inactivity will have any beneficial effect in stopping AGW.

Obviously that's no help.

But, all those efforts, all that money spent, the effect of that on AGW is..........the same.

I'm sorry but I fail to see any advantage to spending all that effort and money to achieve no results on AGW.

Depends on your perspective. To a politician that wants to get reelected spending money on a problem, real or imagined, useful or not makes an impression on voters that love to be bought with their own money.
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
52
Oshawa
See? I told you so!

Still dodging the question, just like I said you would!:lol:


Now you seem to be concerned because others are attempting and failing.

You want Anna to dodge the question too?

You haven't answered mine....you never do.

Telling to say the least.

Like I said, I am perfectly willing to exchange ideas with you if that is the purpose of this thread, if it isn't I won't bother.

I'll ask again......?

Take care.:canada:

.. And you can conclusively prove that AGW is happening?

That is not the purpose of this thread.

There are many threads dealing AGW, if you wish to discuss the validity of AGW I suggest you seek them out.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
We're talking about reducing global emissions by 80%. Can you demonstrate what percentage global emissions would be reduced if everyone did those?
No. Although we fractionalized our impact, we didn't keep track of how much we reduced it by. Otherwise I would have told you long ago. There's nothing keeping others from doing the same and assessing their efforts to see how much they reduced, though.
Can you guarantee that it wouldn't be 80%? If you can show us how you can guarantee that claim, please.

I wonder if you're comprehending the scope of the challenge. Reducing Canadas emissions 80% would be the equivalent of shutting down all industry, manufacturing, agriculture and transportation. Except for the little automotive things you mentioned, all the rest fall into the remaining 20%. How on earth could that ever be expected to achieve an 80% reduction?
I don't think it would actually shut everything down. . I think it would take quite a bit of conversions from old practises to new ones. I think you're claiming that in hopes no-one will call you on it. Like I said before, the area around Trail used to look like a moonscape until Teck-Cominco straightened its act up. Now there's green stuff growing around the town.

You seem to have missed the analogy. The rope and hook are the only way you have of crossing. If you ignore it you do nothing, unless you try to develop some superior technology (boat). Everything we can do now in regards to replacing fossil fuels is nowhere near enought to reduce emissions by the required 80% (that would be the rope and hook). Should we waste resources trying anyway, knowing the effort is futile, or should we look for new tech (boat) that will actually work?
*shrugs* I'd get across the river any way I could, whether it'd be hitch a ride on a pteradactyl or crawl along the rope. Maybe even swim even it swept me downstream a few miles.
So you are saying we either ignore the whole issue or else wait until we have a total new set of products to replace petroleum? You don't think we can reduce as much as we can and when we can. It's either one or the other but not working on the one while we wait for the other. Like I said, your attitude sucks.

I commend you. However you still are consumers and dependant on the energy economy.
Yup, but we reduced our demand on it by a large fraction, which is the point.

Now you're reminding me of SJP and Avro. How does it benefit the atmosphere and planet if our expenditure of vast resources has no effect?
It wouldn't. But as I said before, we do have an impact on our water and land, so it seems inane that we could spew crap into the atmosphere and not expect it to have an impact. And no-one has produced quantitative and definitive proof that points to how much we've affected it that I've seen. Would the planet be better off than if we did nothing? Absolutely not.
Yes we can think of better ways to live, we do it all the time. Yes we can take a good idea and figure out how to make it work, that would be Lomborg's attitude.
Good for Lomborg. And I am glad that you finally see that making an effort at doing what we plan can be a good thing, whether we actually achieve our plan or not. Doing nothing would be just as stupid as polluting in the first place.

So when flight was considered impossible, did people try by jumping off buildings and flapping their arms, knowing all the while that it wouldn't work?

No, they ignored such useless efforts and concentrated on developing the technology that would actually work. Lomborg's attitude again.
So why are you snivelling about the goals we make efforts to achieve?

Prove my claim? It's self evident. See above.
To you maybe. But we aren't as smart as you I guess, so show us please.
Those little things don't even add up the the 20%. let alone the 80%.
How do you know? Show us. I didn't even finish the list yet you claim those things will only amount to less than 20%? And then you tell me that I sound like SJP. roflmao You're a laugh and a half.

Here's a little info for you about Teck-Cominco's smelter in Trail, where in the mid 70s they decided that lead and other contaminants were causing grief in the neighborhood:

A new lead smelter came into use at the Trail site in 1997. This KIVCET flash lead smelter resulted in reduction of lead emissions by about 80%, and a reduction in fine, mobile dust lead loadings by about 50%.
When Jesus comes, He will burn up the whole earth and the heaven: talk about global warming!!!!!!
Keep you religious nonsense in the religious forums, please. This is a science forum.

.. And you can conclusively prove that AGW is happening?
Just as much as you can prove we don't have an impact.

The same kind of mentality was in evidence when the greenies were protesting logging. Some dumb hippie said that all the displaced loggers could earn a living picking wild flowers.
Many places are trying to jump on the green bandwagon, most won't make it but they will kill off the traditional jobs. California's version is to legalize pot so they can tax it.
:roll: And when Florida, Caribbean islands, coastlines in various spots are submerged, what do you think that'll do for the economies?
The Dippers had a better idea; putting the loggers to work in service jobs:almost as ridiculous an idea.
Put a logger to work installing solar panels or something useful and he'd be doing something a little more useful that picking your flowers.
 
Last edited:

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
One thing that I am VERY excited about is a project in Massachusetts called Cape WInd. I am excited for a number of reasons.

1. It replaces fossil fuel with wind power.

2. It is off Hyanis, Cape Cod and it was opposed by none other than the Earth Saving Kennedy's as it would interefer with their views while yachting. Not boating...us little people boat when we are lucky. The Kennedy's and the rest of the well to do of Hyannis "yacht".

You see, saving the earth is great...as long as the liberals aren't affected by it. If the wind farm was off New Bedford or Fall River or some other run down Massachusetts coastal city they would be all for it. Now it is going to be in "THEIR" backyard and THEY are going to have to pay for it.

3. It is going to be very expensive and the cost will trickle down to the consumers on Cape Cod. The wealthy ones will get to see what saving the earth from GW really costs as their power bills will double to pay for the wind farm.

I just LOVE Karma.

Oh and when the final tally came in and the stuffed shirts on Cape Cod FLIPPED out a man simply said.

"Cleaner energy does not mean free and cheap."
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
I have determined that there is no evidence that inactivity will have any beneficial effect in stopping AGW.
Long winded way of saying inactivity won't help. but I'm happy you admitted it anyway.

But, all those efforts, all that money spent, the effect of that on AGW is..........the same.
Your opinion. *shrugs*

I'm sorry but I fail to see any advantage to spending all that effort and money to achieve no results on AGW.
So there's no problem and we shouldn't have to do anything? Right back to the start again. You're the one that's most like SJP.
Yeah, nothing like developing new ideas, new industries to replace the old dirty ones like the petroleum industry. That's just a bad idea and unachievable. :roll:

One thing that I am VERY excited about is a project in Massachusetts called Cape WInd. I am excited for a number of reasons.

1. It replaces fossil fuel with wind power.

2. It is off Hyanis, Cape Cod and it was opposed by none other than the Earth Saving Kennedy's as it would interefer with their views while yachting. Not boating...us little people boat when we are lucky. The Kennedy's and the rest of the well to do of Hyannis "yacht".

You see, saving the earth is great...as long as the liberals aren't affected by it. If the wind farm was off New Bedford or Fall River or some other run down Massachusetts coastal city they would be all for it. Now it is going to be in "THEIR" backyard and THEY are going to have to pay for it.

3. It is going to be very expensive and the cost will trickle down to the consumers on Cape Cod. The wealthy ones will get to see what saving the earth from GW really costs as their power bills will double to pay for the wind farm.

I just LOVE Karma.
It's working in southern AB. Solar energy is working for Germany. The alternative sucks worse.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
It's working in southern AB. Solar energy is working for Germany. The alternative sucks worse.

I am not saying it doesn't work. Power is power. I am all for Cape Wind. I am surprised that the Kennedy's who have been huge proponents of clean energy suddenly was against clean energy when it obstructs their pristine view as they sail off Cape Cod.
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
52
Oshawa
I am not saying it doesn't work. Power is power. I am all for Cape Wind. I am surprised that the Kennedy's who have been huge proponents of clean energy suddenly was against clean energy when it obstructs their pristine view as they sail off Cape Cod.

You're suprised that politicians and elitists are hypocrits?
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
I am not saying it doesn't work. Power is power. I am all for Cape Wind. I am surprised that the Kennedy's who have been huge proponents of clean energy suddenly was against clean energy when it obstructs their pristine view as they sail off Cape Cod.
Aw shucks for them. lol

My point is that the benefits of being cleaner don't have to be in terms of money but a few of limited scope have only that way of looking at things. Germany eased its power supply problems. The population is happy without all the brownouts and stuff, and the gov't is happy it can supply what the people need. The benefits outweigh the costs there. And it isn't like the solar industry there is sitting around lolling in the status quo and collecting profits like oil companies are. The solar industry is growing and that's good for the economy. So the excuse that going green is bad for the economy is limited to be of use to only those of limited imagination:
Nanotechnology Now - Press Release: "Cheaper solar energy due to silicon nanosponges?"
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
Aw shucks for them. lol

My point is that the benefits of being cleaner don't have to be in terms of money but a few of limited scope have only that way of looking at things. Germany eased its power supply problems. The population is happy without all the brownouts and stuff, and the gov't is happy it can supply what the people need. The benefits outweigh the costs there. And it isn't like the solar industry there is sitting around lolling in the status quo and collecting profits like oil companies are. The solar industry is growing and that's good for the economy. So the excuse that going green is bad for the economy is limited to be of use to only those of limited imagination:
Nanotechnology Now - Press Release: "Cheaper solar energy due to silicon nanosponges?"

I've always been a proponent to alternative energy because I can't stand our total dependency on foreign oil. I'm for cleaner energy because it is better than coal plants belching pollution into the sky. So you don't have to be onboard with climate change to want alternative and cleaner energy.

I did love their reaction though when they found out it was going to cost a large fortune to go green. It was even a learning experience to me to see when it comes down to dollars, clean energy is not always cheap energy. One of the experts said he can't understand why they are putting it off shore when it would so much cheaper to make a land based wind farm on the Cape. I bet that made them gasp too. I would love to have wind farms surrounding the Kennedy Compound and on the private beaches.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
I've always been a proponent to alternative energy because I can't stand our total dependency on foreign oil. I'm for cleaner energy because it is better than coal plants belching pollution into the sky. So you don't have to be onboard with climate change to want alternative and cleaner energy.

I did love their reaction though when they found out it was going to cost a large fortune to go green. It was even a learning experience to me to see when it comes down to dollars, clean energy is not always cheap energy. One of the experts said he can't understand why they are putting it off shore when it would so much cheaper to make a land based wind farm on the Cape. I bet that made them gasp too. I would love to have wind farms surrounding the Kennedy Compound and on the private beaches.
I wouldn't mind having one here on our 25 hectares. I think windmills are cool. People paint pictures of all kinds of windmills so I ain't the only one. Too bad the Kennedy's can't like em. Life sucks for them, I guess. lol
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
I wouldn't mind having one here on our 25 hectares. I think windmills are cool. People paint pictures of all kinds of windmills so I ain't the only one. Too bad the Kennedy's can't like em. Life sucks for them, I guess. lol

Oh they love windfarms et all. Just as long as they don't have to see them. I am sure they would not object to having them put in lower and middle class communities.
 

Trotz

Electoral Member
May 20, 2010
893
1
18
Alberta
No the major problem in California are the large number of "paid under the table" residents and illegal migrants who pay no tax yet their children are attending tax-funded schools, receiving medical care, may even be collecting welfare, et al.

California had to find the money from somewhere and the obvious solution was to implementation taxes on businesses - many smaller companies in particular who responded with moving to a neighboring state.

Despite the irrationality of government the people once again vote with their feet.