Global warming

[I’d rather be outdoors]

I honestly just want to know what % of my income it’ll take to resolve “climate change” once & for all. Carbon taxes are the answer right?

I’m being sarcastic. If it’s not obvious, we’re (Canada) not the problem. If people really want change to have a measurable impact, maybe, just maybe, direct the criticism where it’s deserved (the ACTUAL large emitters - China, India, Japan, for example). If you’re actually worried (it’s ok if so), why not focus criticism on where it’ll have THE MOST IMPACT? Why are we soo hard on ourselves with marginal impact over the ones that have the capacity to actually move the needle?

[Supergrit]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Even if they can get batteries where they need to be, to be competitive in cold weather, they need to be able to mine and process the minerals used to build those batteries , in a much more environmentally friendly manner, and they need to be able to recycle them efficiently. Then they need to increase the electrical grid to handle the huge increase in demand, and increase the production of electricity, to supply that huge increase in demand.

It will take a bit longer in cold weather to get the vehicles to we’re they are practical. The batteries will have to take a major step in advancement and it probably won’t be lithium. Renewable energy like wind and solar it will get figured out and be able to handle the grid.
Electricity is easy to make storing it is the problem.
120 years ago people saw the first gas vehicles and they said how can that be better then horse. What a useless invention.
The change is coming and it will be better for the environment

[badbrass]

Where do they, not get this?

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Even if they can get batteries where they need to be, to be competitive in cold weather, they need to be able to mine and process the minerals used to build those batteries , in a much more environmentally friendly manner, and they need to be able to recycle them efficiently. Then they need to increase the electrical grid to handle the huge increase in demand, and increase the production of electricity, to supply that huge increase in demand.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Supergrit

It will take a bit longer in cold weather to get the vehicles to we’re they are practical. The batteries will have to take a major step in advancement and it probably won’t be lithium. Renewable energy like wind and solar it will get figured out and be able to handle the grid.
Electricity is easy to make storing it is the problem.
120 years ago people saw the first gas vehicles and they said how can that be better then horse. What a useless invention.
The change is coming and it will be better for the environment

There is no way that they can make up the extra demand with wind and solar, especially in winter, our climate will not allow it. And of course, there is the cost of building more power generation facilities, and modifying the grid. Where is the money going to come from? As it is, inflation has many people just trying to find enough cash to keep a roof over their head, and food on the table, we can't afford to pay even more taxes, to pay for this.

[Supergrit]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

There is no way that they can make up the extra demand with wind and solar, especially in winter, our climate will not allow it. And of course, there is the cost of building more power generation facilities, and modifying the grid. Where is the money going to come from? As it is, inflation has many people just trying to find enough cash to keep a roof over their head, and food on the table, we can't afford to pay even more taxes, to pay for this.

You are right with todays technology it won’t work but 15 years from now when the green power gets developed it will make sense.
You develop what you have now in order to
Make it better

[tirebob]

Originally Posted by Supergrit

You are right with todays technology it won’t work but 15 years from now when the green power gets developed it will make sense.
You develop what you have now in order to
Make it better

Yes, but destroying our economy for no value other than virtue signalling in the mean time is quite ridiculous.

[I’d rather be outdoors]

Originally Posted by tirebob

Yes, but destroying our economy for no value other than virtue signalling in the mean time is quite ridiculous.

^This X2

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by tirebob

Yes, but destroying our economy for no value other than virtue signalling in the mean time is quite ridiculous.

Exactly! Until we actually have a feasible replacement , it would be silly to abandon the energy sources we have now, in anticipation of what we may have in 10, or 20, or 30 years.

[nelsonob1]

Originally Posted by I’d rather be outdoors

I honestly just want to know what % of my income it’ll take to resolve “climate change” once & for all. Carbon taxes are the answer right?

I’m being sarcastic. If it’s not obvious, we’re (Canada) not the problem. If people really want change to have a measurable impact, maybe, just maybe, direct the criticism where it’s deserved (the ACTUAL large emitters - China, India, Japan, for example). If you’re actually worried (it’s ok if so), why not focus criticism on where it’ll have THE MOST IMPACT? Why are we soo hard on ourselves with marginal impact over the ones that have the capacity to actually move the needle?

You move what you can move. You cross the ditch and pick the other person up. You give the coins you can give. And if you can give nothing, then you don't tell everyone else to give nothing to.

[Smoky buck]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Exactly! Until we actually have a feasible replacement , it would be silly to abandon the energy sources we have now, in anticipation of what we may have in 10, or 20, or 30 years.

^^^^And right here is the only issue myself and majority have with the push towards greener energy

I am in full support of advancements in technology to help improve how this world runs but let’s be realistic at what stage in the game we are in

Personally I don’t think man knows half as much as we think we do when it comes to the changes in the earth’s climate but I fully support efforts to decrease pollution to the air, water, and soil. I don’t think there is anyone on either side of the climate debate that would argue the fact we would benefit from decreasing overall pollution

Now if only the leaders of this world would start using common sense instead of fear mongering trying to put people against each to earn a buck we might improve as a society. Seek the common ground of the people and show that efforts to advance how we do things benefit all. Introduce plans with in-depth effective solutions instead of BS race to look special

But instead we have buffoons pretending they are the ones saving the world today instead of using common sense

[Rvsask]

There’s much to discuss on this topic. One needs beer and fire.

That said, I think Supergrit is correct, the change is imminent as generations move forward. I also think there’s virtue signalling going both ways on this one, that and fear mongering, from both sides. A good example is idea that we are to immediately give up current sources. That’s not possible and the move towards new technologies does not mean this is true. It’s those involved with current technologies that want me to believe those that want new and better ones expect that today, which simply is not true. Remember when many farmers resisted tractors because unlike horses they didn’t reproduce? Me neither, but they did. A world war 1 general said airplanes were interesting scientific toys but of no military value. The list of things resisted by mankind is extensive.

Smoky buck, lots of good points in your post. With beer and fire, I’d be Saying “yeah” after you spoke.

[nimrod]

Yes and im sure when we get a power grid going, the electric vehicles, by 2035, power bills will be way to high to charge any electric vehicle

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Rvsask

There’s much to discuss on this topic. One needs beer and fire.

That said, I think Supergrit is correct, the change is imminent as generations move forward. I also think there’s virtue signalling going both ways on this one, that and fear mongering, from both sides. A good example is idea that we are to immediately give up current sources. That’s not possible and the move towards new technologies does not mean this is true. It’s those involved with current technologies that want me to believe those that want new and better ones expect that today, which simply is not true. Remember when many farmers resisted tractors because unlike horses they didn’t reproduce? Me neither, but they did. A world war 1 general said airplanes were interesting scientific toys but of no military value. The list of things resisted by mankind is extensive.

Smoky buck, lots of good points in your post. With beer and fire, I’d be Saying “yeah” after you spoke.

There is one huge difference between the move from horses to automobiles, that being that automobiles earned their market share, by proving their superiority. At first automobiles were unreliable and expensive, and were more a novelty, but as the manufacturers improved the reliability, and brought costs down, people began to see the advantages and CHOSE WILLINGLY, to transition to automobiles. The government didn't introduce legislation to prevent the sale of horses after a certain date, and they didn't impose a tax on horses, to discourage their use. The same can be said for aircraft, they had to prove their value, on their own merits, we weren't forced to use them through legislation.
With electric vehicles the situation is entirely different, governments are imposing taxes on the fuel used to run internal combustion engines, and they even legislated bans on the sale of non electric vehicles after a certain date. As such, electric vehicles are not earning their place based on their merits, they are being FORCED ON US by politicians even though the battery technology isn't where it needs to be yet, and our electricity generation and transmission are not ready for the transition.

[bdub]

85 percent of the world's population could care less about climate change. We are not going to have any luck changing their behaviors. Their demand for coal, oil and natgas is going to increase for decades to come as they develop their economies, and what right does the West have in telling them to reduce their use. None that I can see.

Europeans are getting a firsthand experience in the dangers of being led by a bunch of politicians that have drank the climate cult Kool-Aid without a backup plan. Spending a winter freezing and going hungry will change the minds of a lot of voters I imagine. Many will join the ranks of the 85% that could care less and vote accordingly going forward.

We don't have it quite so bad over here, not yet anyway. Not a far stretch to see us in the same boat before long though.

[Supergrit]

Oil and gas isn’t going ti disappear totally but it’s role in world energy is going to be a lot less. Our government over the last 40 years has messed up a great industry and it’s a little more messy now wth who is in power

[I’d rather be outdoors]

Originally Posted by nelsonob1

You move what you can move. You cross the ditch and pick the other person up. You give the coins you can give. And if you can give nothing, then you don't tell everyone else to give nothing to.

I do appreciate your perspective, it’s an honest assessment of what some people’s intent is that’s been mired & tied to left wing wokism, which is unfortunate but tis’ they way you get votes. No one wakes up and says “ya know what, I’m just gonna destroy the environment today”. Nobody. All that aside, you hit a really important aspect that myself and others struggle with. Carbon taxes aren’t a choice. It’s not up to you or I to “give” anything. It’s taken without consent (and yes, we can argue citizenship for another day), but there was a saying about “no taxation without representation” somewhere in the history books, which is where we & by proxy, most Albertans struggle.

Back to “climate change”, the size of the prize in Canada is only 1.6%, and if we go fully “green” whatever that means, and shut it all down, is it really worth it? No. No it’s not. Regardless of what side of the political fence you sit on. There’s so many other pressing issues that the focus on this one in particular is I think what’s shocking to people (again political). I get for some it’ll be all they can think about.

Using a comparative (it’s just an example & let’s not turn this into a COVID thread), Some people still worry about COVID and want to wear a mask. That’s totally fine by me. Just don’t force others to wear one. Again, just an example, let’s not go down rabbit holes here. Same logic example here for “climate change”. if people are really concerned about “climate change”, go ahead & fill your boots on donations etc. but don’t force me to pay for something I don’t see the value in (as we’re not criticizing the right stakeholders for the largest impacts -perviously mentioned). If the media & politicians quit demonizing us locally (not likely), and shift focus to the largest polluters, I think it would garner more support for the cause.

[I’d rather be outdoors]

You can’t cross the ditch to pick your neighbour up if you’re in the process of actively knee capping yourself -as a metaphor.

[Grizzly Adams1]

Originally Posted by tirebob

Yes, but destroying our economy for no value other than virtue signalling in the mean time is quite ridiculous.

Covid hyper panic done that for us.

Grizz

[Sundog57]

To have a rational discussion on the subject we would need to agree to certain assumptions.
So for the sake of discussion... (not saying it's so, I have many questions about the topic such as the cause of the Roman warm period etc. but for the sake of an exchange of ideas)

1. Climate change is a real thing
2. if 1. then what we are seeing is very rapid and threatens the future of mankind
3. if 1 & 2 that what we are are seeing is caused by by human activity
4. if 1, 2 & 3 then that the causative human activity is the emission of CO2 which should be reduced.
5. That anything Canada could do would have an effect on any of the above.

The most effective way for any government to affect the behaviour of the population is through the imposition of taxes on undesirable behaviour.

So tax carbon emissions.

OK
BUT.... The correct approach to this would be to REDUCE other taxes(said no Liberal...EVER). That is, the Carbon tax should be revenue neutral if it is to be effective and not have a strangling effect on the economy.
Ideally the Federal government would have increased the "basic income tax deduction" for all Canadians by an amount that would have equalled the amount of carbon tax that an "average" Canadian would pay annually.
So, more money in your pocket with every pay cheque, then you get to decide how to spend it.
Maybe you spend it on lowering your carbon emissions by investing in new technology. (or maybe you spend it on beer but it's your choice)

Lowering the amount of income tax that people in the bottom bracket pay would have a disproportionately positive effect on the lowest income earners as well (heresy - that's almost NDP talk!)
Lowering the amount of Income Tax that corporations pay, perhaps with special rates for transportation companies.

This way you would discourage carbon emission and encourage adoption of lower carbon strategies. Of course from the government perspective, this is not a winning proposition because as people begin to buy in to the idea, their carbon tax revenue goes down - sort of like what happened to cigarettes.

One of the biggest problems with the current system is that it is NOT revenue neutral. For all of the sanctimonious preaching, virtue signalling and huffing and puffing, it's just another way for Justin and his friends to put their hands into your pocket - somebody's gotta pay for those $6000 a night hotel rooms ya know.

It falls into the absolute foundation of Liberal Party dogma - "we know how to spend your money better than you do and if you're good maybe we'll give you back a little bit... but don't count on it because you'd probably just waste it"

[bdub]

Originally Posted by Supergrit

Oil and gas isn’t going ti disappear totally but it’s role in world energy is going to be a lot less. Our government over the last 40 years has messed up a great industry and it’s a little more messy now wth who is in power

I don't see its role decreasing by any great amount. Fossil fuels will remain the dominant energy source for the world out as far as anyone can forecast, despite the fantasies of the climate cult.

In 1973, 87% of the worlds sources of energy came from fossil fuels. Today it is about 84%. So, we have reduced fossil fuel use as a percentage of the total energy use from all sources by 3% over the last almost 50 years. And growth in energy demand continues to increase year after year, with only small dips during recessionary periods. Just on the oil side, OPEC sees continued increase in oil demand out to the year 2045.

So maybe going forward we will see a small percentage increase in other sources of energy in the mix, but nothing is going to meaningfully decrease fossil fuel usage unless we have some global demand shock that lasts for years and years. If that happens, absolutely no one is going to care about climate change.

[I’d rather be outdoors]

Originally Posted by Sundog57

To have a rational discussion on the subject we would need to agree to certain assumptions.
So for the sake of discussion... (not saying it's so, I have many questions about the topic such as the cause of the Roman warm period etc. but for the sake of an exchange of ideas)

1. Climate change is a real thing
2. if 1. then what we are seeing is very rapid and threatens the future of mankind
3. if 1 & 2 that what we are are seeing is caused by by human activity
4. if 1, 2 & 3 then that the causative human activity is the emission of CO2 which should be reduced.
5. That anything Canada could do would have an effect on any of the above.

The most effective way for any government to affect the behaviour of the population is through the imposition of taxes on undesirable behaviour.

So tax carbon emissions.

OK
BUT.... The correct approach to this would be to REDUCE other taxes(said no Liberal...EVER). That is, the Carbon tax should be revenue neutral if it is to be effective and not have a strangling effect on the economy.
Ideally the Federal government would have increased the "basic income tax deduction" for all Canadians by an amount that would have equalled the amount of carbon tax that an "average" Canadian would pay annually.
So, more money in your pocket with every pay cheque, then you get to decide how to spend it.
Maybe you spend it on lowering your carbon emissions by investing in new technology. (or maybe you spend it on beer but it's your choice)

Lowering the amount of income tax that people in the bottom bracket pay would have a disproportionately positive effect on the lowest income earners as well (heresy - that's almost NDP talk!)
Lowering the amount of Income Tax that corporations pay, perhaps with special rates for transportation companies.

This way you would discourage carbon emission and encourage adoption of lower carbon strategies. Of course from the government perspective, this is not a winning proposition because as people begin to buy in to the idea, their carbon tax revenue goes down - sort of like what happened to cigarettes.

One of the biggest problems with the current system is that it is NOT revenue neutral. For all of the sanctimonious preaching, virtue signalling and huffing and puffing, it's just another way for Justin and his friends to put their hands into your pocket - somebody's gotta pay for those $6000 a night hotel rooms ya know.

It falls into the absolute foundation of Liberal Party dogma - "we know how to spend your money better than you do and if you're good maybe we'll give you back a little bit... but don't count on it because you'd probably just waste it"

#5 is the one that gets me. 1.6% won’t move the needle. There will be no appreciable difference at all and will further cripple the economy (most damaging to Alberta but does have a national impact too). Doing absolutely nothing isn’t the right answer, but WAY OVERDOING it is causing more harm than good, which causes resentment. Almost like it’s being used as a wedge by a certain politician/group to distract from other more significant issues in Canada like runaway inflation, the debt/housing bubble, crumbling healthcare, & a litany of other scandals, but that’s a digression for another thread.

[Stinky Buffalo]

Originally Posted by Smoky buck

Personally I don’t think man knows half as much as we think we do when it comes to the changes in the earth’s climate but I fully support efforts to decrease pollution to the air, water, and soil. I don’t think there is anyone on either side of the climate debate that would argue the fact we would benefit from decreasing overall pollution

Agree wholeheartedly!

[Bushrat]

We don't know squat. Humans have only been here for the tiniest near imperceptible blip on the earth timeline graph. Pretty audacious of humans to think we will have any perceptible effect on future climate. After we're gone the earth will carry on doing what it does and wonder how those humans who were here for a couple seconds figured they could change the direction of mother nature.

[urban rednek]

Originally Posted by bdub

Europeans are getting a firsthand experience in the dangers of being led by a bunch of politicians that have drank the climate cult Kool-Aid without a backup plan. Spending a winter freezing and going hungry will change the minds of a lot of voters I imagine. Many will join the ranks of the 85% that could care less and vote accordingly going forward.

We don't have it quite so bad over here, not yet anyway. Not a far stretch to see us in the same boat before long though.

The energy shortfall this winter has the potential to be a valuable learning experience for the virtue signalling masses in Europe and their EU bureaucratic overlords in Brussels. Whether or not the well-meaning progressives on this side of the pond will manage to learn anything from their experience remains to be seen.

OT- There would be less skepticism to the global agenda to combat climate change if every single solution put forth and and adopted by the UN IPCC since the early 1990's hadn't involved wealth transfer, and the associated commissions for brokering the deals, without actually accomplishing any reductions in emissions. Many insiders got insanely rich brokering those deals.
It has always been, and continues to be, a case of "Follow the money".

[Drewski Canuck]

Originally Posted by Supergrit

You are right with todays technology it won’t work but 15 years from now when the green power gets developed it will make sense.
You develop what you have now in order to
Make it better

Not really! Green Power was promised 20 years ago when the Germans started marketing solar panels and wind mills. This is as good as it gets!

Optimal areas for steady wind have already been developed. Solar has maxed out in capacity and now the panels are aging out and have to be somehow recycled.

Why does it take 20 years to BREAK EVEN for a wind or Solar project with zero interest cost if Green Energy is so great?????


Drewski

[nelsonob1]

This is an outdoorsman forum. You would think that we, more than most, could be protectors of the future of the environment we depend upon. We could find value in less is more. Worry about the legacy we pass to our children. Be advocates for the future.

Contrary to some members would believe, this is not leftist woke stuff. This is fundamental to our purpose and belief. .

[Twisted Canuck]

I'm curious why the discussion always seems to be about 'battling climate change'? Is it really possible to change the climate or altar the incredibly complex climate systems that affect the earth (particularly solar cycles)? I see no evidence to support that, historically or in the current context.

Wouldn't a more important discussion be about adapting to climate change?

[fordtruckin]

Originally Posted by EZM

Nah .... I disagree (although it is fun to blame politicians for anything we don't like)

Politicians have absolutely no say, control or influence on global capacity, demand, supply and production outside of federal reserve stocks (which are nothing more that contract obligations (perpetual reserves) which have almost zero impact on anything).

I think it's a convenient and fashionable thing to blame morons like Biden and Trudeau and their energy policies and somehow tie them to the multinational oil producers and pin the blame on them instead of those who actually control this global commodity.

Trust me, I would like to blame them too, but I can't.

And I disagree with you because it is the politicians policies, regulations procedures etc… they implement or do not implement that directly effect how those companies run.

In very basic terms if you had to jump through 5 hoops to get approval for a project that will be cheaper than making you jump through 20 hoops because of extra regulations etc…certain political parties are making it harder and more expensive for these companies to operate. If it’s more expensive to produce they’re going to pass those increases along to the customer. Capitalism at its best. when you have a political party that is notoriously anti fossil fuel and on the EV bandwagon, you won’t convince me that politicians arent to blame. Maybe not all to blame but a large portion does lay with them.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by nelsonob1

This is an outdoorsman forum. You would think that we, more than most, could be protectors of the future of the environment we depend upon. We could find value in less is more. Worry about the legacy we pass to our children. Be advocates for the future.

Contrary to some members would believe, this is not leftist woke stuff. This is fundamental to our purpose and belief. .

Our priority to our children should be not destroying our economy, and getting inflation under control, so they can earn a good living, and be able to afford to buy homes, and feed families of their own. The carbon tax, and legislation that doesn't allow the sale of non electric vehicles after a certain date, and the huge debt from irresponsible spending, and the high inflation from printing more and more money, does come from woke, leftist governments, as do the attempts to destroy our industry, and therefore destroy our economy. Unless we put an end to this nonsense, the legacy that future generations will inherit, will be a greatly reduced standard of living, and not being able to afford their own homes, and becoming more and more dependent on government handouts. that the government will be too broke to maintain.The simple fact is that if we manage to reduce emissions by 25%, which is probably even more than we can hope for in the next 15 years, it will only reduce emissions worldwide by .4%, which is meaningless, as far as saving the environment goes. However, if our federal government keeps going in the same direction they are now, with 15 years, they can succeed in destroying our economy to the point that it can never recover, and that will have a much greater effect on future generations.

I'm curious why the discussion always seems to be about 'battling climate change'? Is it really possible to change the climate or altar the incredibly complex climate systems that affect the earth (particularly solar cycles)? I see no evidence to support that, historically or in the current context.

Wouldn't a more important discussion be about adapting to climate change?

While that makes much more sense, it doesn't support the political agenda that the governments of Canada , and the USA are promoting, so they aren't interested in that approach.

[Smoky buck]

Originally Posted by nelsonob1

This is an outdoorsman forum. You would think that we, more than most, could be protectors of the future of the environment we depend upon. We could find value in less is more. Worry about the legacy we pass to our children. Be advocates for the future.

Contrary to some members would believe, this is not leftist woke stuff. This is fundamental to our purpose and belief. .

Read what I posted earlier post #70

Spend less time trying to push a one sided view and seek the common ground and you will likely find there is many things everyone is in agreement on. The issue lies with the reasons for changing how society operates, what stage we are at technology wise and opinions on how governments are handling environmental issues

Most acknowledge environmental issues and are supportive of advancement to limit our impact on the environment. But climate change theory, carbon taxes, and choking off the economy without solid alternatives not much agreement there

Now if only people spent less time trying to push they are right and more time pushing for change that supports a beneficial end goal regardless of differences in opinion we might see something positive happen.

Sadly the importance of being right out ways getting things accomplished