Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 209

Thread: Trump pulls out of Paris

  1. #101

    Default

    Oh I see - rich countries pay, and poor countries receive.


    Margaret Thatcher, back in 2002, called it for what it is:

    "The doomsters’ favorite subject today is climate change. This has a number of attractions for them. First, the science is extremely obscure so they cannot easily be proved wrong. Second, we all have ideas about the weather: traditionally, the English on first acquaintance talk of little else.

    Third, since clearly no plan to alter climate could be considered on anything but a global scale, it provides a marvelous excuse for worldwide, supra-national socialism. "

    (Margaret Thatcher, by the way, was an environmentalist. She held a science degree and was the world leader who spearheaded the global ban on ozone-layer-depleting CFCs)

  2. #102

    Default

    Yeah, pull up a 15 year old quote. ZERO science and research on climate has happened since then.

    Desperate to find some sources to back up your bias, are we?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  3. #103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Why the hell should India put money in? Their emissions are 1.9t. per capita, ours are 15.5t per capita, 8 times as much. They are also much poorer - and they have their own very poor areas that will likely be hit hard by climate change - their own places to do mitigation and their own work to get their population out of extreme poverty without increasing emissions.
    I thought you cared about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. If that's the goal - reducing the emissions of the biggest emitters is what matters - not the "per capita" emissions. Oh - hold on, seems not the goal, its a poverty re-distribution fund, which makes Obama feel better with his enlightened family and friends sipping lattes on the yacht.
    Yes, and the biggest emitters are not people in poor nations, it's people in rich nations. that there's just a few of us in Canada means nothing.

    If there's a grouping that matters it's "Rich people" - and on a global scale that means us.
    There can only be one.

  4. #104

    Default

    Vice President Mike Pence has called the issue of climate change "a paramount issue for the left" as he sought to defend Donald Trump's decision to withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement on climate change.
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a7769081.html

    So everyone (except Syria) is now "the left" to Pence. Mind you, he's a crazy religious nutter who believes that destroying the planet is something to strive for, as it'll herald the return of his beloved zombie carpenter demi-god with the circular family tree, whose bronze age book of fairy tales he's based his entire life on.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  5. #105

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Yeah, pull up a 15 year old quote. ZERO science and research on climate has happened since then.

    Desperate to find some sources to back up your bias, are we?
    That Thatcher quote is revealing - it's not about climate change or Kyoto targets or anything concrete like that. It's an ideological assumption that anything global is about wealth distribution and socialism.

    Yes, international problems require international solutions. That's obvious.

    What's completely idiotic is condemning proposed solutions on the basis that they are international.
    There can only be one.

  6. #106

    Default

    ^^everyone except Canada, and a handful of countries, is ignoring the Paris agreement, or honestly withdrawing from it (US). Even Canada isn't implementing it (to do so, would be political suicide for Trudeau, given how ridiculously high the carbon tax would have to go to reach our targets).

  7. #107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    That Thatcher quote is revealing - it's not about climate change or Kyoto targets or anything concrete like that. It's an ideological assumption that anything global is about wealth distribution and socialism.

    Yes, international problems require international solutions. That's obvious.

    What's completely idiotic is condemning proposed solutions on the basis that they are international.
    "I hardly see why I should have to give up some of my abundant wealth to aid those at whose expense I acquired it..."
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  8. #108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Why the hell should India put money in? Their emissions are 1.9t. per capita, ours are 15.5t per capita, 8 times as much. They are also much poorer - and they have their own very poor areas that will likely be hit hard by climate change - their own places to do mitigation and their own work to get their population out of extreme poverty without increasing emissions.
    And the richer industrialized countries have been polluting at a greater rates for over 100 years. The bulk of the World's pollution are now the ones with the most responsibility to clean up what they started.








    We also have exported our manufacturing and the pollution associated with industrialization to the third world. Every time we buy electronics or dispose of them, the waste ends up in third world countries.



    moahunter, do you really believe that you have no responsibility to pay a portion of the costs to help clean up the problem that you contributed to?


    Your answer will be interesting.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  9. #109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Vice President Mike Pence has called the issue of climate change "a paramount issue for the left" as he sought to defend Donald Trump's decision to withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement on climate change.
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a7769081.html

    So everyone (except Syria) is now "the left" to Pence. Mind you, he's a crazy religious nutter who believes that destroying the planet is something to strive for, as it'll herald the return of his beloved zombie carpenter demi-god with the circular family tree, whose bronze age book of fairy tales he's based his entire life on.
    I am a Christian, and this idea that we should screw things up to hasten the end is pretty much the antithesis of Christian worldview and ethics. Environmental stewardship, care and advocacy for the poor and disadvantaged, and self-sacrifice for others are all Christian values.
    There can only be one.

  10. #110
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,593

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Why the hell should India put money in? Their emissions are 1.9t. per capita, ours are 15.5t per capita, 8 times as much. They are also much poorer - and they have their own very poor areas that will likely be hit hard by climate change - their own places to do mitigation and their own work to get their population out of extreme poverty without increasing emissions.
    I thought you cared about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. If that's the goal - reducing the emissions of the biggest emitters is what matters - not the "per capita" emissions. Oh - hold on, seems not the goal, its a poverty re-distribution fund, which makes Obama feel better with his enlightened family and friends sipping lattes on the yacht.

    I love types like Obama, they want to say all the right things, but they won't put their own lifestyle in jeopardy. Boats, planes etc.their carbon footprint is huge! Like that huge fake guy, Al Gore and his lefty lemmings. They must know many of us think they are hypocrites.!

  11. #111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^^everyone except Canada, and a handful of countries, is ignoring the Paris agreement, or honestly withdrawing from it (US). Even Canada isn't implementing it (to do so, would be political suicide for Trudeau, given how ridiculously high the carbon tax would have to go to reach our targets).
    That's because we have people like you that rail against the Government or anyone trying to take responsibility for their actions that created the problem in the first place. Did your mother not teach you that "if you make a mess, you are responsible to clean it up."

    Do you believe that it is someone else's problem and you can keep on making messes and have someone else clean up after you at their cost?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  12. #112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Do you believe that it is someone else's problem and you can keep on making messes and have someone else clean up after you at their cost?
    Rhetorical question. He's a prophet from the Church of Ralph Klein, Patron Saint of Kicking the Can Down The Road.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  13. #113
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,583

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^^everyone except Canada, and a handful of countries, is ignoring the Paris agreement, or honestly withdrawing from it (US).
    Not true. For instance, the European Union met its target of an 8% GHG emissions reduction under the previous Kyoto Protocol, and has adopted a more ambitious target for further reductions under the Paris Climate Agreement than either Canada or the US.

    https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/...ess/kyoto_1_en

  14. #114

    Default

    ^That's Kyoto. And, its a lot easier when you don't produce oil / gas, you import it from Russia, Norway, Africa, or the Middle East, who take the emissions burden.

  15. #115

    Default

    It's like you don't even know the relationship between Kyoto & Paris. Kyoto is up to 2020. Paris is after 2020. Same path, same destination.

    Within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, legal instruments may be adopted to reach the goals of the convention. For the period from 2008 to 2012, greenhouse gas reduction measures were agreed in the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. The scope of the protocol was extended until 2020 with the Doha Amendment to that protocol in 2012.
    During the 2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference, the Durban Platform (and the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action) was established with the aim to negotiate a legal instrument governing climate change mitigation measures from 2020. The resulting agreement was to be adopted in 2015.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement

    Continuing the right's fine tradition of objecting to things on principle, while having incomplete understanding & fundamentally terrible principles in the first place.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  16. #116
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Ozerna, North Edmonton
    Posts
    8,961

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by H.L. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Why the hell should India put money in? Their emissions are 1.9t. per capita, ours are 15.5t per capita, 8 times as much. They are also much poorer - and they have their own very poor areas that will likely be hit hard by climate change - their own places to do mitigation and their own work to get their population out of extreme poverty without increasing emissions.
    I thought you cared about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. If that's the goal - reducing the emissions of the biggest emitters is what matters - not the "per capita" emissions. Oh - hold on, seems not the goal, its a poverty re-distribution fund, which makes Obama feel better with his enlightened family and friends sipping lattes on the yacht.

    I love types like Obama, they want to say all the right things, but they won't put their own lifestyle in jeopardy. Boats, planes etc.their carbon footprint is huge! Like that huge fake guy, Al Gore and his lefty lemmings. They must know many of us think they are hypocrites.!
    Coincidentally, Obama just bought a house in DC with 8 bedrooms and 9.5 bathrooms for over $8 million.

  17. #117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilman View Post
    Irrelevantly, Obama just bought a house in DC with 8 bedrooms and 9.5 bathrooms for over $8 million.
    FTFY.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  18. #118

    Default

    ^^^^How is it easier, Moa? We're not talking about having lower per capita levels than we do, where domestic vs. foreign energy sources might have an effect.

    We're talking about a reduction for what they emitted in 1990 - they're burning the same foreign oil as in 1990, just less of it.
    There can only be one.

  19. #119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    ^^^^How is it easier, Moa? We're not talking about having lower per capita levels than we do, where domestic vs. foreign energy sources might have an effect.
    If you import most of your oil and gas, you have a service economy rather than a manufacturing or resources economy, of course its easier. One of the easiest ways to meet an emissions target, is to close a manufacturing plant and build it in another country, then import the products from there. Does nothing for global emissions, but you meet your target, Audi puts a plant in Mexico instead of another one in Germany, great. Global consumption of oil is at record levels and increasing. So what do you propose Highlander - we let Saudi Arabia and other middle east countries which have no environmental standards whatsoever meet that demand, or we, a country with strict pollution standards, meet the needs? If its the later, we are going to miss our targets, its as simple as that. So we instead let Saudia Arabia meet the demand, make a lot of money for the Sheiks to build up their military campaign in Yeman, and watch global emissions continue to rise - brilliant, who needs manufacturing, or resource money, we can all make money researching solar panels / getting government subsidies for them...
    Last edited by moahunter; 02-06-2017 at 11:30 AM.

  20. #120

    Default

    The solution would be tariffs based on the source country's environmental practices, set equivalent to the cost of meeting our higher standards, set by the pound. We could even use our revenue to fund our part in mitigation overseas. In any case, a huge share of our emissions are consumption, not production. We can reduce our consumption production which can only have positive effects.

    re Economic effects, maybe we wouldn't need to worry. I don't see a lot of reports about the poor economic or employment situations in those EU countries that had the hardest reduction targets like Germany, Denmark or the low countries.
    There can only be one.

  21. #121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    ^^^^How is it easier, Moa? We're not talking about having lower per capita levels than we do, where domestic vs. foreign energy sources might have an effect.
    If you import most of your oil and gas, you have a service economy rather than a manufacturing or resources economy, of course its easier. One of the easiest ways to meet an emissions target, is to close a manufacturing plant and build it in another country, then import the products from there. Does nothing for global emissions, but you meet your target, Audi puts a plant in Mexico instead of another one in Germany, great. Global consumption of oil is at record levels and increasing. So what do you propose Highlander - we let Saudi Arabia and other middle east countries which have no environmental standards whatsoever meet that demand, or we, a country with strict pollution standards, meet the needs? If its the later, we are going to miss our targets, its as simple as that. So we instead let Saudia Arabia meet the demand, make a lot of money for the Sheiks to build up their military campaign in Yeman, and watch global emissions continue to rise - brilliant, who needs manufacturing, or resource money, we can all make money researching solar panels / getting government subsidies for them...
    If that were the case, then US emissions should already be easily falling with all the manufacturing that has supposedly moved to other countries over the last 20 or 30 years.

    The middle east was blessed with oil that is easy to extract with less environmental cost. However, their political climate is not so good. That's one of the reasons places like Europe are trying to cut oil consumption and switch to renewables.

    Yes, what is happening in Yemen now is terrible, but I don't recall Trump saying anything about it to the Saudi's while he was there. Unlike past US presidents, he didn't say anything about human rights there either.

  22. #122
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,593

    Default

    Why are all these countries taking Saudi oil, when they all know about their human rights? It doesn't change no matter who brings it up.Perhaps if countries said no to their oil,then it might change.

  23. #123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by H.L. View Post
    Why are all these countries taking Saudi oil, when they all know about their human rights? It doesn't change no matter who brings it up.Perhaps if countries said no to their oil,then it might change.
    Do all the people wearing diamonds know where they were mined? How about people wearing T-shirts made in Bangladesh?

    If the US stopped selling weapons to Saudi Arabia that might help too.

    There are a lot of things the wealthy and powerful get away with in the world that are not ethical - Saudi is just one example.

  24. #124
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,593

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by H.L. View Post
    Why are all these countries taking Saudi oil, when they all know about their human rights? It doesn't change no matter who brings it up.Perhaps if countries said no to their oil,then it might change.
    Do all the people wearing diamonds know where they were mined? How about people wearing T-shirts made in Bangladesh?

    If the US stopped selling weapons to Saudi Arabia that might help too.

    There are a lot of things the wealthy and powerful get away with in the world that are not ethical - Saudi is just one example.
    Didnt we also do a deal with Saudi? Umm, yes!
    I'm not talking diamonds, I'm talking oil. It seems to me, all this talking does very little. We import oil from countries who have terrible human rights.

  25. #125

    Default

    So, what you're saying is that since we don't make a big deal about other nation's human rights we shouldn't deal with our own environmental problem?

    I suspect that we could do both.
    There can only be one.

  26. #126

    Default

    If the Saudis had not of got their arms from the U S A I should imagine Canada would have went after the order. In as much the western world gripes about the Middle East they still do business with them.
    Trumps pulling out of the Paris agreement is going to slow down the coffers of this accord. The richer countries have to contribute to the poorer countries share. Billions of dollars of money going into countries and how much of it actually goes towards climate change. I should imagine a lot is skimmed off the top and put into private of shore accounts.

    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ticle30459788/
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  27. #127
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,593

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    So, what you're saying is that since we don't make a big deal about other nation's human rights we shouldn't deal with our own environmental problem?

    I suspect that we could do both.
    But were not.

  28. #128
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,593

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    If the Saudis had not of got their arms from the U S A I should imagine Canada would have went after the order. In as much the western world gripes about the Middle East they still do business with them.
    Trumps pulling out of the Paris agreement is going to slow down the coffers of this accord. The richer countries have to contribute to the poorer countries share. Billions of dollars of money going into countries and how much of it actually goes towards climate change. I should imagine a lot is skimmed off the top and put into private of shore accounts.

    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ticle30459788/
    Which is what I posted yesterday. No accountability for this money.smh.

  29. #129

    Default

    Middle eastern countries are high emitters, and most of them are rich countries, we won't be paying them for mitigation. An you know what else we won't be paying them for??

    Oil! if we cut emissions and sufficiently nobody would be buying oil from them, and they wouldn't have money for spreading extremist wahhabi islam or for buying weapons!!

    Sounds like a win-win to me!!
    There can only be one.

  30. #130
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,593

    Default

    It sounds like we just go around and around on this issue.

  31. #131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Oil! if we cut emissions and sufficiently nobody would be buying oil from them, and they wouldn't have money for spreading extremist wahhabi islam or for buying weapons!!

    Sounds like a win-win to me!!
    It does sound good. However, the problem is that a large number of the environmentalists advocating for that are also actively trying to shut down our own domestic oil industry because it's "dirty". They need to pick a side for our fossil fuel source - either domestic, or the Gulf dictatorships.

  32. #132

    Default

    Yeah, there's definitely some of that out there, especially some of those celebrity oilsands photo-ops over the past few years. they always say something about how it's the most horrific thing they've ever seen.


    I've seen the oilsands and to my eyes at least a LA freeway-scape is at least as horrific.

    And not to minimize the issues that local first nations still face and the pain in any one situation, but compared to the scale of the rights abuses against the female 50% of the population and the millions of indentured "guest workers" in smaller gulf nations our problems are minute.
    Last edited by Highlander II; 02-06-2017 at 12:37 PM.
    There can only be one.

  33. #133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    If the Saudis had not of got their arms from the U S A I should imagine Canada would have went after the order. In as much the western world gripes about the Middle East they still do business with them.
    Trumps pulling out of the Paris agreement is going to slow down the coffers of this accord. The richer countries have to contribute to the poorer countries share. Billions of dollars of money going into countries and how much of it actually goes towards climate change. I should imagine a lot is skimmed off the top and put into private of shore accounts.

    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ticle30459788/
    So are you saying that Trump pulling out of the Paris agreement will somehow stop arms sales to Saudi Arabia? I don't think so.

  34. #134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Oil! if we cut emissions and sufficiently nobody would be buying oil from them, and they wouldn't have money for spreading extremist wahhabi islam or for buying weapons!!

    Sounds like a win-win to me!!
    It does sound good. However, the problem is that a large number of the environmentalists advocating for that are also actively trying to shut down our own domestic oil industry because it's "dirty". They need to pick a side for our fossil fuel source - either domestic, or the Gulf dictatorships.
    Well if their concern is the environment - the oil from the middle east is better. How Saudi Arabia treats people does not affect cause drought in California or cause sea level rise in Miami, etc... I think we would be more successful if we try to address their concerns rather than try distract from them.

    All the money spent on creating an "ethical" oil image would be better spent on technology to make oil extraction here more environmental.

  35. #135

    Default

    All I know is, when I read the thread title 'Trump pulls out of Paris' I thought that Trump was cheating on his third wife...
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  36. #136
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,593

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Oil! if we cut emissions and sufficiently nobody would be buying oil from them, and they wouldn't have money for spreading extremist wahhabi islam or for buying weapons!!

    Sounds like a win-win to me!!
    It does sound good. However, the problem is that a large number of the environmentalists advocating for that are also actively trying to shut down our own domestic oil industry because it's "dirty". They need to pick a side for our fossil fuel source - either domestic, or the Gulf dictatorships.
    Well if their concern is the environment - the oil from the middle east is better. How Saudi Arabia treats people does not affect cause drought in California or cause sea level rise in Miami, etc... I think we would be more successful if we try to address their concerns rather than try distract from them.

    All the money spent on creating an "ethical" oil image would be better spent on technology to make oil extraction here more environmental.
    How does that oil from Saudi get to North America, how environmental is that?
    Venezuela rust buckets were banned ( finally) lots of questions, very few answers when it comes to these countries. I'd have a lot of questions if the decision was mine. Pipelines do sometimes leak, but they are still the safest way to transport oil.

  37. #137

    Default

    Yes, There used to be so many spills every year. Those rust buckets were banned by international and EPA environmental regulations.

    You know, the exact thing that Trump wants to get rid of.

    Funny how logic comes and bites you in the ***.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  38. #138

    Default

    And the REAL reasons other nations are upset that the USA pulled out of the Paris agreement are beginning to emerge:


    German carmakers fear losing competitive edge after U.S. Paris exit

    Germany's powerful car industry said Europe would need to reassess its environmental standards to remain competitive after the United States said it would withdraw from the Paris climate pact.

    President Donald Trump said on Thursday he would withdraw the United States from the landmark 2015 global agreement to fight climate change, drawing anger and condemnation from world leaders and heads of industry.

    "The regrettable announcement by the USA makes it inevitable that Europe must facilitate a cost efficient and economically feasible climate policy to remain internationally competitive," Matthias Wissmann, president of the German auto industry lobby group VDA, said in a statement on Friday.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...source=twitter

  39. #139
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,593

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    And the REAL reasons other nations are upset that the USA pulled out of the Paris agreement are beginning to emerge:


    German carmakers fear losing competitive edge after U.S. Paris exit

    Germany's powerful car industry said Europe would need to reassess its environmental standards to remain competitive after the United States said it would withdraw from the Paris climate pact.

    President Donald Trump said on Thursday he would withdraw the United States from the landmark 2015 global agreement to fight climate change, drawing anger and condemnation from world leaders and heads of industry.

    "The regrettable announcement by the USA makes it inevitable that Europe must facilitate a cost efficient and economically feasible climate policy to remain internationally competitive," Matthias Wissmann, president of the German auto industry lobby group VDA, said in a statement on Friday.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...source=twitter

    LOL, of course they could just lie about emissions, or rig a car........

  40. #140

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Oil! if we cut emissions and sufficiently nobody would be buying oil from them, and they wouldn't have money for spreading extremist wahhabi islam or for buying weapons!!

    Sounds like a win-win to me!!
    It does sound good. However, the problem is that a large number of the environmentalists advocating for that are also actively trying to shut down our own domestic oil industry because it's "dirty". They need to pick a side for our fossil fuel source - either domestic, or the Gulf dictatorships.
    Well if their concern is the environment - the oil from the middle east is better.
    How so? There are zero environmental standards there - there is nobody checking or caring when a pipe leaks, or a well is flared, groundwater contaminated, workers injured killed or polluted (who are imported from poverty stricken countries to do the dirty work), or anything else. You don't see Greenpeace activists doing work there (funny that - seems they don't want to go into a real jail). Then it has to get transported all the way to North America. And that's just the middle east, California has higher emissions in producing oil than we do in Canada. What we don't produce, they can ramp up.

    Former oil sands plant:



    Former well in Azerbaijan:

    Last edited by moahunter; 02-06-2017 at 04:10 PM.

  41. #141

    Default

    Yeah, it's not like a German car company (like Volkswagon, for instance) would ever cook their books to make it appear that their emissions were less harmful or anything. Right?

  42. #142
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,593

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Yeah, it's not like a German car company (like Volkswagon, for instance) would ever cook their books to make it appear that their emissions were less harmful or anything. Right?
    No way!

  43. #143

    Default

    Trump pulling out of the Paris accord had nothing to do with the accord. Trump needs a "win", and sticking his thumb in the eye of the rest of the world counts, in his mind, as a "win". The silly old bugger thinks it's some kind of deal that his elite negotiating skills, as yet all but invisible, will make somehow better for the people he pretends to care about. But it mostly makes him feel accomplished.
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  44. #144

    Default

    More than 2,400 coal-fired power stations are under construction or being planned around the world, a study has revealed two weeks after Britain pledged to stop burning coal.
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/...cop21-pledges/

    The Paris Accord really is something.
    Even if half of these coal-fired plants are moth balled the world will still go ahead and build the other half. Trump maybe knows a 'scheme' when he sees one.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  45. #145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by H.L. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Yeah, it's not like a German car company (like Volkswagon, for instance) would ever cook their books to make it appear that their emissions were less harmful or anything. Right?
    No way!
    That's like ... so 2016.

    I am sure they are wishing right now the EPA didn't catch on to their tricks.

  46. #146
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,493

    Default

    President Donald Trump used a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study to back up his departure from the Paris climate agreement on Thutrsday. But one of the study's authors says the President misinterpreted their data, showing "a complete misunderstanding of the climate problem."

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/02/politi...inkId=38304060
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  47. #147

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    More than 2,400 coal-fired power stations are under construction or being planned around the world, a study has revealed two weeks after Britain pledged to stop burning coal.
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/...cop21-pledges/

    The Paris Accord really is something.
    Even if half of these coal-fired plants are moth balled the world will still go ahead and build the other half. Trump maybe knows a 'scheme' when he sees one.
    It's a story about a story by James Delingpole, agent provocateur from Breitbart. I'd wait for someone with more credibility and less historical raving to report the same before I got interested.
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  48. #148

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jagators63 View Post
    President Donald Trump used a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study to back up his departure from the Paris climate agreement on Thutrsday. But one of the study's authors says the President misinterpreted their data, showing "a complete misunderstanding of the climate problem."

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/02/politi...inkId=38304060
    More specifically, Steve Bannon pulled that misinterpretation into the speech he wrote for Trump. That wasn't a Trump speech, Trump read Bannon's words off the teleprompter. Bannon sees and has seized an opportunity to use Trump as a puppet for his worldview agenda. For now, Bannon has Trump's ear: Kushner is looking dirty and maybe having second thoughts about his father-in-law's mental stability. Blood may be thicker than water, but Trump is not afraid to turn on his kin if his inner 8-year-old cries out for it. He did it with his brother's family, with his longtime mentor Roy Cohn, and other entities that became inconvenient, got in the way, or weren't useful anymore.

    There's plenty more inanity in the speech that Bannon has seen as being understandable, memorable, and palatable to Trump so he'll deliver the message(s).
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  49. #149
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,593

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by H.L. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Yeah, it's not like a German car company (like Volkswagon, for instance) would ever cook their books to make it appear that their emissions were less harmful or anything. Right?
    No way!
    That's like ... so 2016.

    I am sure they are wishing right now the EPA didn't catch on to their tricks.
    Its 2017,so last year. Don't make it sound like it was in 1990!

  50. #150

    Default

    But VW was caught and has paid billions of dollars in penalties.


    See, justice was served.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  51. #151

    Default

    Donald Trump Claims to Champion Pittsburgh Over Paris. He Knows Nothing of Pittsburgh.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/...othing_of.html
    And if Paris was the symbol of that ideology, the alternative, a nation of miners and pipelines, belching smoke like a charcoal grill, was represented by … Pittsburgh? “I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris,” Trump said.
    But it was an especially bad comparison because Pittsburgh isn’t the burned-out steel town Trump thinks it is. In fact, it’s a pretty good example of how a city can recover and adapt to changing economic circumstances. Pittsburgh’s doing OK.

    Once again, Donald Trump has shown himself a man who has acquired little to no new knowledge since the 1980s. And during the 1980s, Pittsburgh was indeed having a very tough time. The city lost 30 percent of its population between 1970 and 1990; in 1983, unemployment in the Pittsburgh metropolitan area hit 17 percent. Neighboring counties fared even worse. Deindustrialization and globalization slammed the Monongahela Valley. But that was 35 years ago.


    Today, Pittsburgh’s biggest employer is the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. Its other university, Carnegie Mellon, is home to a world-renowned robotics laboratory. The Golden Triangle is a landmark of downtown renewal. And Homestead, site of the great American labor battle of the 19th century, is a mall.

    Before Pittsburgh was the poster child for a midsized, postindustrial city, it was a symbol of the ills of pollution. The soot from the steel mills hung so thick in the air the streetlights had to be on during the day. In 1948, 25 miles south of the city, the town of Donora was enveloped in a thick yellow smog that killed 20 people and sickened half the town. It was the worst air pollution disaster in U.S. history and led to the passage of the Clean Air Act.


    There’s no city in America that stands to benefit from climate change, whose enormous costs are and will continue to be borne mostly by the federal government (and hence distributed among us). But as a symbol for withdrawal from a global climate treaty, Pittsburgh is an especially poor choice.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  52. #152
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,583

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    Trump pulling out of the Paris accord had nothing to do with the accord. Trump needs a "win", and sticking his thumb in the eye of the rest of the world counts, in his mind, as a "win". The silly old bugger thinks it's some kind of deal that his elite negotiating skills, as yet all but invisible, will make somehow better for the people he pretends to care about. But it mostly makes him feel accomplished.
    After reading transcripts of both Trump and Pruitt's remarks when they pulled the plug, I'm inclined to agree with the above analysis.

    As a number of commentators have pointed out, the Paris agreement GHG targets are based on Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC). These are targets countries determine themselves, not imposed on them externally. The Obama Administration's target of a 17% reduction in GHGs by 2020 and 26-28% by 2025 were based mainly on two policies. The Clean Power Plan which is mostly about expediting the phasing out coal in favour of natural gas and renewables in electricity generation, and phasing in fuel efficiency standards nation-wide that are already in place in states like California.

    Funny thing is that the US was already about 40% of the way there to 2020 (a 7% reduction between 2005 to 2014). Source: https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicato...-gas-emissions

    As an alternative to withdrawing from the Paris agreement, the US could have revised its NDC to what it thought could be achieved in the absence of the additional regulations being put in place by the previous Administration.

    BTW, at some point Canada may have revise its NDC as we have only reduced GHGs by 2% between 2005 and 2015, less than one-eighth of our 17% reduction target by 2020. Source: https://www.ec.gc.ca/GES-GHG/default...F9C56-1#trends

  53. #153

    Default

    A grand total of Americans employed by the coal industry.

    66,000

    Number of non-coal industry jobs added in the month of May alone. 137,000

    Realization.

    The coal industry is a sliver of a fraction of the American conomy and a minor voting block that Trump expounds as critical to his new dirty economy.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  54. #154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    A grand total of Americans employed by the coal industry.

    66,000

    Number of non-coal industry jobs added in the month of May alone. 137,000

    Realization.

    The coal industry is a sliver of a fraction of the American conomy and a minor voting block that Trump expounds as critical to his new dirty economy.
    Same could be said about Alberta's oilsands for its only a sliver a jobs in a grand scale

  55. #155
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,493

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    But VW was caught and has paid billions of dollars in penalties.


    See, justice was served.

    GM were caught cheating on Diesel emissions

    http://www.nbcnews.com/business/auto...ssions-n765146
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  56. #156

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jagators63 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    But VW was caught and has paid billions of dollars in penalties.


    See, justice was served.

    GM were caught cheating on Diesel emissions

    http://www.nbcnews.com/business/auto...ssions-n765146
    The claim so far is that they were caught. Maybe a neutral party will confirm it.

  57. #157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Why the hell should India put money in? Their emissions are 1.9t. per capita, ours are 15.5t per capita, 8 times as much. They are also much poorer - and they have their own very poor areas that will likely be hit hard by climate change - their own places to do mitigation and their own work to get their population out of extreme poverty without increasing emissions.
    I thought you cared about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. If that's the goal - reducing the emissions of the biggest emitters is what matters - not the "per capita" emissions. Oh - hold on, seems not the goal, its a poverty re-distribution fund, which makes Obama feel better with his enlightened family and friends sipping lattes on the yacht.
    Clearly Moahunter the Russians have got you brainwashed . ,

    do what Obama sais not as he does ....

  58. #158

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    there's more to life than money. That seems to be all trump supporters care about though.
    As a Trump supporters I can tell you that's not true . What's most important is Freedom , rights , less government ....most us are libertarians and yes do love money for its what puts my family through school, puts food on the table .

  59. #159

    Default

    gotta take care of our world too.

  60. #160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    gotta take care of our world too.
    If you believe in that but from horticulture I can tell you that CO2 is a good thing. I can pump it in to my greenhouse and increase plant/ food production by 30%. I have the solar panels ...I even ( defiantly) had windmills in the city . I'm one of the very few who has lived a green lifestyle ....I couldn't do all those things giving Notely or some globalist all my money....

    What they don't talk about is the heavy metals , the pesticides---the killing of our bee populations ...that's what will destroy our species....our planet will always be here unless destroy by an asteroid, Nuked In To oblivion
    Last edited by champking; 03-06-2017 at 09:30 PM.

  61. #161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by champking View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    gotta take care of our world too.
    If you believe in that but from horticulture I can tell you that CO2 is a good thing. I can pump it in to my greenhouse and increase plant/ food production by 30%. I have the solar panels ...I even ( defiantly) had windmills in the city . I'm one of the very few who has lived a green lifestyle ....I couldn't do all those things giving Notely or some globalist all my money....

    What they don't talk about is the heavy metals , the pesticides---the killing of our bee populations ...that's what will destroy our species....our planet will always be here unless destroy by an asteroid, Nuked In To oblivion
    Oh the planet will still be here, that's not the problem. Maybe New York and Miami will be underwater after the ice caps melt and many tropical places will be too unbearably hot to live, many plant and animals will not be able to adapt to unpredictable and quickly changing weather patterns, but the planet will still be "here". Mars and Venus are still "here" too but without plants and animals.

    Those plants that love the COO2 will probably have trouble with the more frequent droughts and floods though.

    There is no carbon tax on your supposed solar panels or windmills, so I have no idea why the heck you are going on about the globalist Notley. Maybe too much heavy metals in your corn flakes.

  62. #162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Maybe New York and Miami will be underwater after the ice caps melt and many tropical places will be too unbearably hot to live, many plant and animals will not be able to adapt to unpredictable and quickly changing weather patterns
    I've been hearing this for decades. In fact, lots of it was supposed to have happened already.

    There are people labeled as "climate change deniers". I think it's time to start calling some people "climate change exaggerators".

  63. #163

    Default

    Dave : I'm not about to give Notely my money on a 'maybe ' they either know what their talking about or they don't. And, like Mr. Oilers states, listened to the Al Gore types New York was to be flooded by now

  64. #164
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,369

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    A grand total of Americans employed by the coal industry.

    66,000

    Number of non-coal industry jobs added in the month of May alone. 137,000

    Realization.

    The coal industry is a sliver of a fraction of the American conomy and a minor voting block that Trump expounds as critical to his new dirty economy.
    i think the 66,000 is a selective number meant to make a point, not reflect reality. it's part of a larger whole. the impact of coal doesn't come from mining it, it comes from the entire chain that ends up using the products resulting from burning it. it's the entire chain that needs modification and miners as miners are just the canaries. the job losses will include shipping and construction and plant maintenance and manufacturing - in some cases - like steel - it will include entire industries. will the replacement technologies provide offsetting economic activity? that's usually answered with a yes but those that say yes too often fall back on the inclusion of those same upstream and downstream jobs when they say there are more green jobs to be created than miners' jobs lost.
    Last edited by kcantor; 04-06-2017 at 08:28 AM.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  65. #165

    Default

    Let's look at a worst case scenario . Things warm up and we don't suffer these cold winters . We're able to grow peaches , cherry, tropical fruits. Alberta maybe even gets a coast line .
    To think that the planet never changes or that our species shouldn't have to relocate ., when since our earliest settlers always moved either because of floods , drought , too fallow the carabou. It's a fact of life . Best learn how to adapt ...it's like Alberta's unwillingness to diversify , then people cry they don't have jobs , when they should be learning new skills , relocating .

  66. #166

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    A grand total of Americans employed by the coal industry.

    66,000

    Number of non-coal industry jobs added in the month of May alone. 137,000

    Realization.

    The coal industry is a sliver of a fraction of the American conomy and a minor voting block that Trump expounds as critical to his new dirty economy.
    i think the 66,000 is a selective number meant to make a point, not reflect reality. it's part of a larger whole. the impact of coal doesn't come from mining it, it comes from the entire chain that ends up using the products resulting from burning it. it's the entire chain that needs modification and miners as miners are just the canaries. the job losses will include shipping and construction and plant maintenance and manufacturing - in some cases - like steel - it will include entire industries. will the replacement technologies provide offsetting economic activity? that's usually answered with a yes but those that say yes too often fall back on the inclusion of those same upstream and downstream jobs when they say there are more green jobs to be created than miners' jobs lost.

    The whole problem is that the replacement jobs created out of change DO NOT arise for the same workers, the same families, the same towns, the same regions. Telling the loser in a game of poker that change is good is nonsense. A permanent loss is a permanent loss. In zero sum and net positive sum games the losses then accrue as gains in someone else's pocket.

    Coal provides cheap electricity. Cheap electricity permits all kinds of associated economic activity, a small portion of which would enable the production of some good or service. Most activity though would simply allow consumers to pocket some savings to be spent elsewhere - so no real gain.

    Paying more using higher cost coal or higher cost alternative such as green energy simply transfers what would be savings into the pockets of the higher cost entities to them spend to create jobs elsewhere.

    Some pure efficiencies though can result if say solar eliminates the "make work" effect if digging ditches of coal seams and then filling them in again. (A simple mechanization/ automation effect.) both coal and solar are natural resources - essentially free for the taking but each creating conversion costs and huge negative impacts.

    Whose Ox is Gored? |

    "...
    Competitive Arguments: Professor Campbell raised an important point on the need to think consciously about competing arguments. Economists may argue that trade imbalances accumulation (and national trade deficit) may not be detrimental to the aspects of gross domestic product and economic growth rate, and even other economic indicators such as unemployment rate. My understanding is that macroeconomists tend not to take trade imbalances (and its size) too seriously as an independent variable. But from an IPE perspective, inevitably there are trade conflicts, political pressures surrounding the agenda, and outcomes resulting from these conflicts which can be traced back to trade imbalances. Comparative disadvantage in trade is always what drives voting behavior in national elections, as long as there seems to be an industrial loss or unemployment due to the trade imbalances.

    There are some bottom-lines suggested by Professor Campbell: one, if the research question is really on why the U.S. chooses to file certain cases and some cases not, and if the question is really on the decision-making of the USTR, to what extent trade imbalances motivate the US policy decision making, then the conditions regarding the filing of the cases would be central key factors to explain for. Two, differentiating whether it is macro-aggregate trade deficit or sectoral trade deficit would be important. In the latter case, there are specific things you can look into. Given the latter situation, when industry competitions get severe, the likelihood of trade deficit accumulation has always been low. Since the mid-70’s, the U.S. has imported more goods that it has exported. This balance began to improve in the early `90s but has again significantly increased. Some believe the trade deficit is evidence that American companies are failing to compete in global markets or that U.S. exporters face “unfair” trade barriers abroad. Other economists observe that it is the sign of a healthy economy which has the resources to purchase a large volume of goods. In fact, they note that from 1992 to 1997, the U.S. trade deficit almost tripled, while at the same time U.S. industrial production increased by 24 percent and manufacturing output by 27 percent (See Griswold). ..."

    http://blogs.bu.edu/junepark/2011/10...e-ox-is-gored/
    Last edited by KC; 04-06-2017 at 08:56 AM.

  67. #167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by champking View Post
    Let's look at a worst case scenario . Things warm up and we don't suffer these cold winters . We're able to grow peaches , cherry, tropical fruits. Alberta maybe even gets a coast line .
    To think that the planet never changes or that our species shouldn't have to relocate ., when since our earliest settlers always moved either because of floods , drought , too fallow the carabou. It's a fact of life . Best learn how to adapt ...it's like Alberta's unwillingness to diversify , then people cry they don't have jobs , when they should be learning new skills , relocating .
    Sounds nice. However there's always the devil you don't know issue. The unintended consequences, or rather, unpredicted effects. Simply redistributing the weight of water on the earth' crust combined with gravitational pull does what? I have no idea. Could it trigger slippage of the earths plates? Simple fracing causes earthquakes. So could new large volcanoes result? They tend to trigger the odd mass extinction.
    Last edited by KC; 04-06-2017 at 09:16 AM.

  68. #168
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,369

    Default

    ^^
    there's nothing new there when it comes to outdated jobs. whether it's miners or cod fishermen or type setters or telephone operators or the proverbial buggy whip maker, jobs by category have always been a disappearing thing. the necessary response - retraining and/or relocation - to that hasn't changed and trying to protect them for their own sakes will fail just as making light of the consequences instead of building and executing that response will also fail.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  69. #169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by champking View Post
    Let's look at a worst case scenario . Things warm up and we don't suffer these cold winters . We're able to grow peaches , cherry, tropical fruits. Alberta maybe even gets a coast line .
    To think that the planet never changes or that our species shouldn't have to relocate ., when since our earliest settlers always moved either because of floods , drought , too fallow the carabou. It's a fact of life . Best learn how to adapt ...it's like Alberta's unwillingness to diversify , then people cry they don't have jobs , when they should be learning new skills , relocating .
    Sounds nice. However there's always the devil you don't know issue. The unintended consequences, or rather, unpredicted effects. Simply redistributing the weight of water on the earth' crust combined with gravitational pull does what? I have no idea. Could it trigger slippage of the earths plates? Simple fracing causes earthquakes. So could new large volcanoes result? They tend to trigger the odd mass extinction.
    Possibly..but there's also greater chance of poking the Russian bear who's said they would set off a tactical Nuke in Yellowstone. Plunging 70% of the U.S In to darkness. All the ash would render all our combustion engines inoperative, plug our filtration systems , contaminate our water supply. The same Clinton / Obama types couldn't care....let's keep poking the Bear . Where as Trump wants to build relationships, mitigate a war , such attacks . To me that would be if greater concern , than a ' maybe ' our planet may flood, a maybe set off a volcano.

    Yet the Trudeau have our troops building up on Russian boarder and the way their defense systems work, it's not even up to Putin or their Generals ,....it's all automated. So should there be a first strike their systems automatically start nuking everything .
    Last edited by champking; 04-06-2017 at 09:56 AM.

  70. #170

    Default

    The chances of a tactical nuclear device setting off a volcano is almost zero. You are talking foolishness.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  71. #171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    The chances of a tactical nuclear device setting off a volcano is almost zero. You are talking foolishness.
    That's an interesting idea though.

  72. #172

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    The chances of a tactical nuclear device setting off a volcano is almost zero. You are talking foolishness.
    That's kinda like how Trump could warn us all about these voting systems being hacked . But the left said it's not possible / it's fake ...but , the second they lose " we been hacked ! Lol

    I would believe a General and the scientist behind over some guy just saying it's not possible. For can you provide any supportive evidence ? What experience do you have on the subject ?

  73. #173

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by champking View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by champking View Post
    Let's look at a worst case scenario . Things warm up and we don't suffer these cold winters . We're able to grow peaches , cherry, tropical fruits. Alberta maybe even gets a coast line .
    To think that the planet never changes or that our species shouldn't have to relocate ., when since our earliest settlers always moved either because of floods , drought , too fallow the carabou. It's a fact of life . Best learn how to adapt ...it's like Alberta's unwillingness to diversify , then people cry they don't have jobs , when they should be learning new skills , relocating .
    Sounds nice. However there's always the devil you don't know issue. The unintended consequences, or rather, unpredicted effects. Simply redistributing the weight of water on the earth' crust combined with gravitational pull does what? I have no idea. Could it trigger slippage of the earths plates? Simple fracing causes earthquakes. So could new large volcanoes result? They tend to trigger the odd mass extinction.
    Possibly..but there's also greater chance of poking the Russian bear who's said they would set off a tactical Nuke in Yellowstone. Plunging 70% of the U.S In to darkness. All the ash would render all our combustion engines inoperative, plug our filtration systems , contaminate our water supply. The same Clinton / Obama types couldn't care....let's keep poking the Bear . Where as Trump wants to build relationships, mitigate a war , such attacks . To me that would be if greater concern , than a ' maybe ' our planet may flood, a maybe set off a volcano.

    Yet the Trudeau have our troops building up on Russian boarder and the way their defense systems work, it's not even up to Putin or their Generals ,....it's all automated. So should there be a first strike their systems automatically start nuking everything .
    It would be great to just have normal peaceful relations but the Cold War never ended for either side. Was NATO opportunistic in Georgia? Were the newly independent nations seeking to defend themselves from a Russia seeking to repossess old colonies? Both? Were the fears realistic? Is NATO still seeking to contain Russia? Is Russia seeking to expand its shere of influence? The US? (Of course.)


    Note this perspective:

    Russia, Georgia, and independence in the age of imperialism

    By Saul KanowitzAug 15, 2008
    The U.S. government and media have portrayed the latest conflict between Russia and Georgia over South Ossetia and Abkhazia as a resumption of Russia’s Soviet-era “domination” over the smaller, beleaguered country of Georgia.

    But in fact, on Aug. 8, the Georgian government initiated a sudden bombing and artillery attack on South Ossetia’s capital city Tskhinvali. The Georgian military hoped to reclaim the small region of 1,505 square miles, which has tried to exercise its proclaimed independence since 1990. Georgian forces bombed and fired missiles against South Ossetia’s civilian population, but were quickly driven out by Russian troops.


    Georgia’s swift defeat has come as a shock to Washington, which had poured vast resources into the country’s military. ...

    President George Bush, and presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and John McCain have denounced Russia ...

    George W. Bush, speaking at an Aug. 13 press conference, said: “The United States stands with the democratically-elected government of Georgia. We insist that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia be respected.”

    This straight-faced statement comes from ...U.S. occupation ..

    John McCain, not to be outdone by a sitting president, ...

    Barack Obama also issued a statement on Aug. 11, writing, “[T]he U.N. must stand up for the sovereignty of its members, and peace in the world.” Obama has pledged to continue the U.S. blockade of Cuba ...

    These capitalist politicians feign concern for the Georgian people and are outraged at Russia’s actions. However, their real fear is that the Russian military victory represents a setback for U.S. geostrategic designs for the region.

    Overthrow of USSR paves the way for imperialist penetration...

    The recent actions by Georgia’s government were not those of an independent nation but those of a close U.S. ally. President Mikheil Saakashvili was elected in 2004 following the U.S.-engineered “Rose Revolution.” Since then, Saakashvili has moved quickly to fashion the country’s domestic and foreign policy in line with Washington in the hopes of joining the imperialist NATO military alliance.

    On Aug. 7, the day before Georgian troops attacked South Ossetia, Immediate Response 2008—a joint U.S.-Georgian military exercise involving more than 1,000 U.S. Army, Marine and National Guard troops—was concluded. The Pentagon also flew Georgia’s 2,000 troops fighting in Iraq, the third largest contingent of the occupation forces, back to their home country to bolster Washington’s proxy forces.


    https://www.liberationnews.org/08-08...dence-in-html/
    The New (Old) Russian Imperialism - Georgia-Russia Crisis - TIME
    By Yuri Zarakhovich / MoscowWednesday, Aug. 13, 2008

    "...

    Nevertheless, the nationalist march continues. This week, the Moscow daily Vremya Novostei ran a story on a new high school history book recommended by the Russian government. It praises Stalin as "the protector of the system" and "a consistent supporter of the transformation of the country into an industrial society, administered from a single center." The textbook also maintains that "the introduction of Soviet forces onto the territory of Poland in 1939 was for the liberation of the territories of Ukraine and Belarus," and that the absorption of the Baltic states and Bessarabia (now the independent country of Moldova) was appropriate because "earlier they were part of the Russian Empire."

    So, what earlier parts of the Russian Empire might be reacquired next? Moldova's own breakaway province, Trans-Dniestria, has been controlled since 1993 by Russian peacekeepers in the same fashion they "kept peace" in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. There is Ukraine's Crimea, which is still the Russian Fleet's Black Sea base and is densely populated with ethnic Russians who, the Kremlin keeps hinting, might need the Motherland's protection. ..."

    http://content.time.com/time/special...836234,00.html
    Last edited by KC; 04-06-2017 at 10:54 AM.

  74. #174

    Default

    Every government / territory or could be a corporation or elitist looks to expand either via sheer force , Annexation , legally.

    Will use the city of Edmonton as example who wants to Annex our land , take over control , rule over all of us. It's how it's always been , always will be . The best we can do is try mitigate the losses, casualty's. Either us humans , our wild animals . Paving over our best farm land. Or in case Georgia / Crimea

    Look at Nutley declaring war on the province of B.C ...it's expansionist
    Last edited by champking; 04-06-2017 at 11:07 AM.

  75. #175

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    Trump pulling out of the Paris accord had nothing to do with the accord. Trump needs a "win", and sticking his thumb in the eye of the rest of the world counts, in his mind, as a "win". The silly old bugger thinks it's some kind of deal that his elite negotiating skills, as yet all but invisible, will make somehow better for the people he pretends to care about. But it mostly makes him feel accomplished.
    No, depressingly Trump pulling out caters to American self interest, protectionism, me first philosophy that increasingly defines that Nation. In this purview the world doesn't exist, its out there, the only thing that matters is US interests. Theres no shortage of US electorate that will support that kind of short sighted direction.

    Trump is president by promising to cater to these types of national interests. People forget that.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  76. #176

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Donald Trump Claims to Champion Pittsburgh Over Paris. He Knows Nothing of Pittsburgh.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/...othing_of.html
    And if Paris was the symbol of that ideology, the alternative, a nation of miners and pipelines, belching smoke like a charcoal grill, was represented by … Pittsburgh? “I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris,” Trump said.
    But it was an especially bad comparison because Pittsburgh isn’t the burned-out steel town Trump thinks it is. In fact, it’s a pretty good example of how a city can recover and adapt to changing economic circumstances. Pittsburgh’s doing OK.

    Once again, Donald Trump has shown himself a man who has acquired little to no new knowledge since the 1980s. And during the 1980s, Pittsburgh was indeed having a very tough time. The city lost 30 percent of its population between 1970 and 1990; in 1983, unemployment in the Pittsburgh metropolitan area hit 17 percent. Neighboring counties fared even worse. Deindustrialization and globalization slammed the Monongahela Valley. But that was 35 years ago.


    Today, Pittsburgh’s biggest employer is the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. Its other university, Carnegie Mellon, is home to a world-renowned robotics laboratory. The Golden Triangle is a landmark of downtown renewal. And Homestead, site of the great American labor battle of the 19th century, is a mall.

    Before Pittsburgh was the poster child for a midsized, postindustrial city, it was a symbol of the ills of pollution. The soot from the steel mills hung so thick in the air the streetlights had to be on during the day. In 1948, 25 miles south of the city, the town of Donora was enveloped in a thick yellow smog that killed 20 people and sickened half the town. It was the worst air pollution disaster in U.S. history and led to the passage of the Clean Air Act.


    There’s no city in America that stands to benefit from climate change, whose enormous costs are and will continue to be borne mostly by the federal government (and hence distributed among us). But as a symbol for withdrawal from a global climate treaty, Pittsburgh is an especially poor choice.
    He knows alliteration. That's the degree of thought that went into the phrased comparison. Theres no real comparable, its playing alphabet soup sesame street. First Manhattan takes Moscow and Boston over Berlin. That kind of thing.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  77. #177

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    Trump pulling out of the Paris accord had nothing to do with the accord. Trump needs a "win", and sticking his thumb in the eye of the rest of the world counts, in his mind, as a "win". The silly old bugger thinks it's some kind of deal that his elite negotiating skills, as yet all but invisible, will make somehow better for the people he pretends to care about. But it mostly makes him feel accomplished.
    No, depressingly Trump pulling out caters to American self interest, protectionism, me first philosophy that increasingly defines that Nation. In this purview the world doesn't exist, its out there, the only thing that matters is US interests. Theres no shortage of US electorate that will support that kind of short sighted direction.

    Trump is president by promising to cater to these types of national interests. People forget that.
    The problem with globalism is that 1 bad move destroys us all. Eg. 2008 sub prime or PIG nations debt .

    Much like our electrical grid , should it go down , solar flare everybody be hooped, we be plunged in to darkness and chaos where as if : we all micro generated our power , had our solar panels etc ...or all had our own gardens , chickens . Bees etc not only would we not have to give the system our money , we be protecting ourself ----hence protectionism
    Last edited by champking; 04-06-2017 at 11:36 AM.

  78. #178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by champking View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    Trump pulling out of the Paris accord had nothing to do with the accord. Trump needs a "win", and sticking his thumb in the eye of the rest of the world counts, in his mind, as a "win". The silly old bugger thinks it's some kind of deal that his elite negotiating skills, as yet all but invisible, will make somehow better for the people he pretends to care about. But it mostly makes him feel accomplished.
    No, depressingly Trump pulling out caters to American self interest, protectionism, me first philosophy that increasingly defines that Nation. In this purview the world doesn't exist, its out there, the only thing that matters is US interests. Theres no shortage of US electorate that will support that kind of short sighted direction.

    Trump is president by promising to cater to these types of national interests. People forget that.
    The problem with globalism is that 1 bad move destroys us all. Eg. 2008 sub prime or PIG nations debt .

    Communist China wouldn't be such a threat for it still be closed off to the world and poor. The Saudis wouldn't be so powerful and rich.

    Where as Canada ...who has all these resources can't even look after self, we're dependent , we're vulnerable .
    Theres a careful what one wishes for message. Particularly with China. With that country transitioning inevitably from Communism to eventual capitalism its of course given rise to that country having increased pockets of wealth and spending and consuming. With all the environmental cost that creates. With a significant chunk of the world population. China increasing its economic vitality is a global disaster on the scale that all the rest of the countries on Earth combined likely can't make up for.

    To the next point that per capita comparisons of ecological footprint that have been made in the thread are misleading. China and India being countries that had rampant out of control birth rates for centuries while Canada has always had a responsible and maintainable birth rate and the only reason our population increases is through net immigration.

    To use per capita emissions comparisons is innately unfair to Canada. The biggest part of reducing human footprint on the world is limiting the exponential population growth first. Countries that historically haven't done that have not even started to be ecologically responsible and should certainly not be in the position of telling Canada what to do. As protectionist as that might sound.
    Last edited by Replacement; 04-06-2017 at 11:38 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  79. #179

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by champking View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    Trump pulling out of the Paris accord had nothing to do with the accord. Trump needs a "win", and sticking his thumb in the eye of the rest of the world counts, in his mind, as a "win". The silly old bugger thinks it's some kind of deal that his elite negotiating skills, as yet all but invisible, will make somehow better for the people he pretends to care about. But it mostly makes him feel accomplished.
    No, depressingly Trump pulling out caters to American self interest, protectionism, me first philosophy that increasingly defines that Nation. In this purview the world doesn't exist, its out there, the only thing that matters is US interests. Theres no shortage of US electorate that will support that kind of short sighted direction.

    Trump is president by promising to cater to these types of national interests. People forget that.
    The problem with globalism is that 1 bad move destroys us all. Eg. 2008 sub prime or PIG nations debt .

    Communist China wouldn't be such a threat for it still be closed off to the world and poor. The Saudis wouldn't be so powerful and rich.

    Where as Canada ...who has all these resources can't even look after self, we're dependent , we're vulnerable .
    Theres a careful what one wishes for message. Particularly with China. With that country transitioning inevitably from Communism to eventual capitalism its of course given rise to that country having increased pockets of wealth and spending and consuming. With all the environmental cost that creates. With a significant chunk of the world population. China increasing its economic vitality is a global disaster on the scale that all the rest of the countries on Earth combined likely can't make up for.

    To the next point that per capita comparisons of ecological footprint that have been made in the thread are misleading. China and India being countries that had rampant out of control birth rates for centuries while Canada has always had a responsible and maintainable birth rate and the only reason our population increases is through net immigration.

    To use per capita emissions comparisons is innately unfair to Canada. The biggest part of reducing human footprint on the world is limiting the exponential population growth first. Countries that historically haven't done that have not even started to be ecologically responsible and should certainly not be in the position of telling Canada what to do. As protectionist as that might sound.
    Glad you see that. Scary thought is it ? Specially if we see the ' New world order ' for what it is . Consolidating all the world's power in to one. If we look it's the dictators <___IMF, the communists , the Saudis who are gaining the control . Soon as we give up and they control the reserve currency ....we're done for . We can kiss our sovereignty, our democracy , rights and freedoms goodbye . With robotics and technology ....taking our guns , last defences ...the people won't be able fight back.
    Last edited by champking; 04-06-2017 at 11:54 AM.

  80. #180

    Default

    Huh. Even Al Gore admits that the Paris Accord won't solve the problem of climate change:

    https://twitter.com/joshdcaplan/stat...90636775178240

  81. #181

    Default

    Read a bit more on what Al Gore has to say.

  82. #182

  83. #183

    Default

    cute picture.

    Climate change is still a real world problem. Obviously, as your employer is kinder morgan, you care more about profits of oil companies than the health of the world.

  84. #184

    Default

    That cartoon perfectly exemplifies the worst attitude we commonly see from the left -

    "Everybody needs to change what they are doing for the better good." but "Me? No, someone else needs to do it. Someone else needs to pay for it. I won't be that example of how to do it. Someone else needs to. Not me, but someone."

  85. #185
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,593

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    That cartoon perfectly exemplifies the worst attitude we commonly see from the left -

    "Everybody needs to change what they are doing for the better good." but "Me? No, someone else needs to do it. Someone else needs to pay for it. I won't be that example of how to do it. Someone else needs to. Not me, but someone."
    Especially All Gore! Hypocritical blowhard.

  86. #186
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    4,004

    Default

    Yeah, Top_Dawg hears Mr. Oil.

    They always preach what everybody else should be doing.

    But never for a moment would they inconvenience themselves by doing what they advocate everyone else should be doing.

  87. #187

    Default

    And what Al Gore does doesn't change the validity of what he says, despite what the right-wingers would like everyone to believe.

    No amount of ad hominems & tu quoque fallacious arguments will change that & if that's all you've got in your toolkit to try and discredit climate change & the need to address it you've already lost. You're just too ignorant to realize it.

    E: Priceless to see more of the right wing contingent all parrot MrOilers crap. Hilarious! It's always nice when you're so conveniently blatant in displaying your ignorance.
    Last edited by noodle; 05-06-2017 at 08:49 AM.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  88. #188

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    And what Al Gore does doesn't change the validity of what he says, despite what the right-wingers would like everyone to believe.

    No amount of ad hominems & tu quoque fallacious arguments will change that & if that's all you've got in your toolkit to try and discredit climate change & the need to address it you've already lost. You're just too ignorant to realize it.

    E: Priceless to see more of the right wing contingent all parrot MrOilers crap. Hilarious! It's always nice when you're so conveniently blatant in displaying your ignorance.
    In fairness is practice what one preaches now dead as a concept? Why not be consistent with ones convictions and utilize accordingly?

    If you stated what Gore does doesn't change scientific validity of info presented then of course I agree. But does such inconsistency call into question the validity of the persons missive? How much of a mission is Gore environmentalism if he doesn't even practice?
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  89. #189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    In fairness is practice what one preaches now dead as a concept?
    No, it's still a fine maxim & a good guide to avoiding hypocrisy.


    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Why not be consistent with ones convictions and utilize accordingly?
    Because sometimes compromise is called for, sometimes we can't live up to our ideals & sometimes people are just flawed individuals.


    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    If you stated what Gore does doesn't change scientific validity of info presented then of course I agree. But does such inconsistency call into question the validity of the persons missive?
    No, it doesn't. That's why an appeal to hypocrisy & other ad hominems are considered fallacious arguments.

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    How much of a mission is Gore environmentalism if he doesn't even practice?
    Do you really think there'd be a point where the right wing would be accepting & not calling someone like Al Gore a hypocrite instead of addressing the issues directly? If there's no way to actually respond to criticism in that vein, is the criticism even valid?
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  90. #190

    Default The Paris agreement - a pretentious, moralistic, socialist document

    It has no hard-and-fast emission-reduction targets: Governments set their own targets based on what they think they can get away with with voters or what they think they have to give up to shut up the environmental lobby (which is huge and extremely well-funded) and its media pals.For instance, in Paris, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau committed Canada to reducing its emissions to 30% below 2005 levels by 2030.

    There is no way for us to do that without crippling our economy and putting millions out of work. That kind of emissions cut would require the equivalent of parking every car, truck, airplane, bus and train in the country – permanently – or shutting down every factory and non-nuclear power plant.

    Not gonna happen. But fear not, the Paris accord gives the UN no power by which to enforce our promised reductions or punish our failure.

    So how then can the UN claim adherence to Paris will keep global temperatures from rising more than 1.5°C? The same way Al Capone could claim he made a meagre middle-class income while pocketing millions annually from bootleg liquor: creative accounting.
    http://www.torontosun.com/2017/06/03...alist-document

  91. #191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    In fairness is practice what one preaches now dead as a concept?
    No, it's still a fine maxim & a good guide to avoiding hypocrisy.


    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Why not be consistent with ones convictions and utilize accordingly?
    Because sometimes compromise is called for, sometimes we can't live up to our ideals & sometimes people are just flawed individuals.


    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    If you stated what Gore does doesn't change scientific validity of info presented then of course I agree. But does such inconsistency call into question the validity of the persons missive?
    No, it doesn't. That's why an appeal to hypocrisy & other ad hominems are considered fallacious arguments.

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    How much of a mission is Gore environmentalism if he doesn't even practice?
    Do you really think there'd be a point where the right wing would be accepting & not calling someone like Al Gore a hypocrite instead of addressing the issues directly? If there's no way to actually respond to criticism in that vein, is the criticism even valid?
    Your answer to the first point potentially conflicts with your third answer. I'm having trouble parsing both statements. In statement it seems you acknowledge the fine maxim to avoid hypocrisy and at the same time consider the hypocrisy fallacious.

    To answer your question my own take is that very limited and defined environmental missives have often been the most successful. Ones that are clearly defined, like limiting CFC's to help save the ozone layer. Make goals too broad and they are more subject to questioning and opting out of.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  92. #192

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Your answer to the first point potentially conflicts with your third answer. I'm having trouble parsing both statements. In statement it seems you acknowledge the fine maxim to avoid hypocrisy and at the same time consider the hypocrisy fallacious.
    I said hypocrisy was something to avoid and that the "appeal to hypocrisy" is a fallacious argument. One should generally live in accordance with their beliefs, but an inability to do so does not in & of itself invalidate said beliefs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    To answer your question my own take is that very limited and defined environmental missives have often been the most successful. Ones that are clearly defined, like limiting CFC's to help save the ozone layer. Make goals too broad and they are more subject to questioning and opting out of.
    So limiting CFCs to prevent further damage to the ozone layer is fine, but limiting CO2 to prevent further damage to global climate isn't?
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  93. #193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post

    So limiting CFCs to prevent further damage to the ozone layer is fine, but limiting CO2 to prevent further damage to global climate isn't?
    Not at all what I am saying.

    I am stating that broader targets are more subject to non participation. Not whether I would participate. I would, and do. But I don't arrive in a stretch limo while being a public speaker on a poverty forum albeit Ralph Klein would. Just to use an example.


    I'm reminded of a priest in Jasper Place when I grew up in a working class neighborhood. He drove the worst vehicle anybody had, an old VW bug. Rusted out bucket. People asked him if they could help out and he could get better wheels. He refused and believed that having less, and demonstrating less possessions was consistent with gospel teachings. He was a highly respected man in the community. People grew to love his old bug and that it invoked a consistent message. Sorry in advance if that is entirely disconnected. its just an example of modeled consistency.

    AS a kid, and even at the time an agnostic I respected that priest as much for what he drove and how he himself lived than what he had to say.
    Last edited by Replacement; 05-06-2017 at 10:12 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  94. #194

    Default

    ^basically like a smart goal. Have realistic targets. CFC elimination made sense because there were alternatives available, and it only impact a few products, not almost every activity humans do, from smoking a cigarette to lighting a camp fire. They could have some agree smart goals with a view to attaining the reductions. For example, raising insulation standards in certain climates. Reducing the number of autos on the road. phasing out coal burning. etc.

  95. #195

    Default

    ^Theres a problem with too broad of goals and also with goals that are causally one step removed. This has been well documented.

    For instance when I grew up habitat encroachment, deforestation, example depletion of the amazon was a common focus. Ironically while clearcutting continued unabated here...I remember learning how obscene it was that the Amazon was being cut down for profit and not a peep about deforestation here..

    But I digress. Something like habitat encroachment is a clear and inarguable concept. It requires no debate. A parking lot instead of a forest is encroachment. It isn't arguable.

    Air pollution, the same. Can be measured, concisely documented, and with clear advisory. Clear and irrefutable connections can be made between local pollutants and local sources.

    Global warming however involves mechanisms, tertiary contributions, and is needlessly a more complex environmental message.

    The same, and more effective policy could be developed to decrease pollutants, decrease coal, diesel consumption etc and with these being obvious anyway targets that few would dispute. I don't know when and why the Environmental lobby went with the global warming missive. I think pragmatically that was a mistake. Application and efficacy of the lobby would increase around simpler, and more clearly defined targets.
    Last edited by Replacement; 05-06-2017 at 10:25 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  96. #196

  97. #197

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    It has no hard-and-fast emission-reduction targets: Governments set their own targets based on what they think they can get away with with voters or what they think they have to give up to shut up the environmental lobby (which is huge and extremely well-funded) and its media pals.For instance, in Paris, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau committed Canada to reducing its emissions to 30% below 2005 levels by 2030.

    There is no way for us to do that without crippling our economy and putting millions out of work. That kind of emissions cut would require the equivalent of parking every car, truck, airplane, bus and train in the country – permanently – or shutting down every factory and non-nuclear power plant.

    Not gonna happen. But fear not, the Paris accord gives the UN no power by which to enforce our promised reductions or punish our failure.

    So how then can the UN claim adherence to Paris will keep global temperatures from rising more than 1.5°C? The same way Al Capone could claim he made a meagre middle-class income while pocketing millions annually from bootleg liquor: creative accounting.
    http://www.torontosun.com/2017/06/03...alist-document
    Amazing!

    So what was the issue with it, and why on earth would Trump one, want to pull out of it and, two, why on earth would Trump then want to renegotiate it? Especially when the premise at the heart of it all, global Warming, is not even real according to Trump?

  98. #198

    Default

    Hahaha. Right-wing rubes linking a Sun right-wing Gunter editorial like it's actual journalism written by someone with ethics & principles, not one step up from ranting propaganda meant to rile up the reactionaries.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  99. #199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    In fairness is practice what one preaches now dead as a concept? Why not be consistent with ones convictions and utilize accordingly?

    If you stated what Gore does doesn't change scientific validity of info presented then of course I agree. But does such inconsistency call into question the validity of the persons missive? How much of a mission is Gore environmentalism if he doesn't even practice?
    His emissions are large, but he's still just one person. He could do everything in his power to reduce his own emissions but the result would be miniscule compared to the combined benefit of governments taking reductions seriously. Despite his personal emissions he's still doing good, assuming that his advocacy work has made a difference in bringing the issue to the forefront on the population level.
    There can only be one.

  100. #200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    His emissions are large, but he's still just one person. He could do everything in his power to reduce his own emissions but the result would be miniscule compared to the combined benefit of governments taking reductions seriously.
    You mean, a bit like how the oil sands emissions are totally miniscule with no real impact on a world scale? Funny how that applies to oil sands, but not to Al Gore - if you took all the 1 percenters (who control most of the worlds wealth) like him and Obama who preach about global warming, and had them live in normal houses instead of massive mansions, and not use luxury yachts and private jets, it would probably have a bigger impact on global emissions than Alberta does.
    Last edited by moahunter; 05-06-2017 at 11:00 AM.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •