Global Warming

[Dude]

I have always wondered why don't we use our funds for climate change in places where the impact would be huge?

For example use the money to help a country like India move away from coal and convert all cars to electric. Make all taxis and bus transport electric. Help them build rail network. The impact on pollution would be massive. Send in teams to help clean up and get lots of trees planted and help to get waste under control.

Would not helping countries that cannot afford to go green not make a much bigger impact on the climate than in places that are already way ahead?

With India in particular, my immediate response is, why the eff should my tax dollars go to fund that country? There is a STUPID amount of untaxxed wealth in India. it's obscene. I want zero.zero % of my tax dollars going there.

I could be brought onboard a similar humanitarian plan in Haiti, Honduras, etc., but then you need assurances their Governments won't just line their pockets.

This time in 2019, I was riding in Bolivia. Last day is this trip we rode this amazing canyon separated by a river. Breathtaking area, have to see to appreciate. Near the access road are two impoverished villages, where local eco tourism is working with the leaders to provide $b10 (Boliviar) per tourist to access the canyon, about $1.85 CDN right now. Why $10b? well, that is what they used to charge for full pick-up trucks full of garbage to access and dump the garbage in the river. Now they rely on the tourist access, and turn away the trucks.

The Amazon is full of garbage, from the high Amazon in Bolivia & Peru to the discharge into the Atlantic out of Brazil. This is normal, because there isn't anywhere near the infrastructure in most South American countries to deal with waste. This isn't the problem w/ citizens, it's a problem with various levels of Government refusing to invest in infrastructure. If they won't even take care of their own, what makes you think they'd allow a bunch of foreigners come in and help make changes without skimming off the top?

 

[mtkb]

I have always wondered why don't we use our funds for climate change in places where the impact would be huge?

For example use the money to help a country like India move away from coal and convert all cars to electric. Make all taxis and bus transport electric. Help them build rail network. The impact on pollution would be massive. Send in teams to help clean up and get lots of trees planted and help to get waste under control.

Would not helping countries that cannot afford to go green not make a much bigger impact on the climate than in places that are already way ahead?

This is why I find the greenies utterly contemptible. Go lecture China and India on their carbon footprints. Better yet, go lecture the Gulf states about their drilling practices. But no, I have to drink through a wooden straw and pay a surcharge for a goddamn coffee cup because we're trying to save the one planet we all share. Fcuk RIGHT off. Cowards.

They're big on ideas that work in their fcuked up brains while they're up in their ivory towers. They treat "must" as gospel without remotely considering the "how", or "who's paying". It's just as authoritarian as statists like Trudeau - they have this giant blind spot for practical realities, including how the free market and individuals with free will are going to adjust to the change they're contemplating making.

Bottom line, green energy won't be scalable for decades. Getting China and India ON to natural gas and oil - produced relatively cleanly by countries with good human rights records (like, say, Canada) - will do more for the planet than any of the idiotic ideas the Greta brigade pulls out of their rectums...

 

[lego3]

Also, what's funny is that businesses like large grocery stores charging $0.4/paper bag and Starbucks $0.25/cup just to name a few. This has created another income revenue stream for these businesses and then you hear lefties complaining about the price increase.

You are never going to get India and China to change their infrastructure to green energy that's just not happening in our lifetime.

Jordan Peterson had said something that has stuck in my mind. Biggest polluters are the third world countries because people there have a different mind set they don't think 20 to 50 years ahead and what going to happen to our planet they think about where are they going to get their next meal in 2 hours so that they can feed their families. Poor people there are not resource efficient and they use slash and burn agricultural. If you really want to change global warming you should start there and get people out of poverty and that is also not going to happen in our lifetime.

If you have some time watch these videos

 

[dezza]

I thought Elon Musk donated $6 billion and world hunger is over.

Have I been misled?

 

[PV]

Jordan Peterson had said something that has stuck in my mind. Biggest polluters are the third world countries because people there have a different mind set they don't think 20 to 50 years ahead and what going to happen to our planet they think about where are they going to get their next meal in 2 hours so that they can feed their families. Poor people there are not resource efficient and they use slash and burn agricultural. If you really want to change global warming you should start there and get people out of poverty and that is also not going to happen in our lifetime.

The january 2022 Rolling Stone magazine has an article about peterson and Joe rogan. It says they are two of the stupidest people on the earth. Author is critical of Peterson's argument that one cannot conclude that fossil fuel use affects climate.
Dude mentioned his experience in Bolivia. Wife and I are currently in Ecuador. Gas is cheap here because the government subsidizes fuel (they have a right wing government) and as a result there are almost no electric cars, other than a few very small electric cars from China.
Recycling seems non existent. They have bins for recycling, but everything gets thrown into the same space in the garbage trucks.
Two major highways in ecuador are closed right now due to landslides caused by record rainfalls. They also had heavy rains in late january which caused a landslIde in quito that killed dozens of people.
Ecuador has 4 good things. 1. The people are nice. 2. The scenery is beautiful. 3. They are expanding the marine protection area around the galapagos. 4. Soccer is the only real sport and ecuador will qualify for the world cup.

 

[Dude]

The january 2022 Rolling Stone magazine has an article about peterson and Joe rogan. It says they are two of the stupidest people on the earth. Author is critical of Peterson's argument that one cannot conclude that fossil fuel use affects climate.
Dude mentioned his experience in Bolivia. Wife and I are currently in Ecuador. Gas is cheap here because the government subsidizes fuel (they have a right wing government) and as a result there are almost no electric cars, other than a few very small electric cars from China.
Recycling seems non existent. They have bins for recycling, but everything gets thrown into the same space in the garbage trucks.
Two major highways in ecuador are closed right now due to landslides caused by record rainfalls. They also had heavy rains in late january which caused a landslIde in quito that killed dozens of people.
Ecuador has 4 good things. 1. The people are nice. 2. The scenery is beautiful. 3. They are expanding the marine protection area around the galapagos. 4. Soccer is the only real sport and ecuador will qualify for the world cup.

5. The people. Worth repeating. Easily the best part of South America are the South Americans. Warm, fun loving and generous. Can’t wait to get back. Ecuador is next on my riding hit list.

 

[PV]

I gotnsomebgreatbadvicebfrom a

 

[PV]

Some TTPers offered opinions on best places to live.
I checked out Sechelt last year and like porpoise bay, but am wary of low waterbank properties, even though they are best for enjoying watersports.
Victoria is nice but climate change may mean it will be too windy in the future. Don't know if its potable water is reliable long term.
Richmond can easily afford to raise the height of its dykes without costing each homeowner a lot because of its large pulation. Smaller population centres have more of a challenge.

 

[PV]

The oil industry execs who misled everyone decades ago have retired, with their huge bonuses. Hopefully the people now running the companies have a conscience.

 

[Dude]

The oil industry execs who misled everyone decades ago have retired, with their huge bonuses. Hopefully the people now running the companies have a conscience.

What?

1. What part of you doesn’t understand the world needed and still needs fossil fuels? The planet is nowhere near ready for full electric, infrastructure wise. Now with gas prices jacking everyone thinks electric is the answer, except, the technology is largely financially inaccessible for young people (we don’t have the transit infrastructure here, and many jobs still require a vehicle), and hydro prices are still stupidly high. Nothing is free. Do you want to have 2-3 more Site C type projects? What does your tree hugger hat say about the equivalent of 10x Open pit mining excavation to accommodate adding more hydro? @mtkb nailed it, for a country rich in fossil fuels, we’ve fcuked ourselves.

2. What is wrong with an executive getting his/her bonus again? Are we now against people pursuing the higher education (Masters +), as well as risk taking in their career to warrant higher pay? You against small business people taking dividends in their businesses, too?

In case you haven’t heard, Communism is roaring back. It’s a long flight to Russia, but they are looking for good people.

Fcuk me you are dense…..

 

[PV]

Fcuk me you are dense…..

Centuries old strategy, insult them if you can't debate them.
The international panel on climate change says we need to get off fossil fuels.

 

[Dude]

Centuries old strategy, insult them if you can't debate them.
The international panel on climate change says we need to get off fossil fuels.

It's not an insult, I call it like it is.

You keep forgetting the "How".

How?

I give you debate points, and you conveniently skip over them. So, for in the interest of debating, please answer me this: are you prepared to accept the environmental consequences of 2-3 more Site C type projects? https://thenarwhal.ca/topics/site-c-dam-bc/

Me, I'm prepared for it, and readily accept it, because we'll need it.

Do you understand the concept of supply and demand, though? Electrical power is far more expensive to consume than gas, of all types.

Are you prepared to potentially triple the costs of heating your home? You start putting in the roadblocks to extracting and cleanly using gas, and force feeding electrical on all, we will only see the costs to consume escalate.

See, the problem is, you make these statements, but you never offer the substance to back it up. Start giving me the HOW if you are going to give me the WHAT and the WHY. Maybe then I'll take you more seriously. Till then, you are sorta dense.

 

[Dude]

Some TTPers offered opinions on best places to live.
I checked out Sechelt last year and like porpoise bay, but am wary of low waterbank properties, even though they are best for enjoying watersports.
Victoria is nice but climate change may mean it will be too windy in the future. Don't know if its potable water is reliable long term.
Richmond can easily afford to raise the height of its dykes without costing each homeowner a lot because of its large pulation. Smaller population centres have more of a challenge.

Revelstoke. You have nature and high ground. Deal with the winters.

You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too, so unless you plan on living on a floating home in a lake somewhere (Powell Lake is nice), you won't get away from the rising waterlines. I grew up part time in Powell River, it's very quiet and isolated, but for retirement, may have what you are looking for, including high-ground close to the ocean.

You're welcome.

 

[mtkb]

The oil industry execs who misled everyone decades ago have retired, with their huge bonuses. Hopefully the people now running the companies have a conscience.

Now do it for Al Gore.

 

[mtkb]

Centuries old strategy, insult them if you can't debate them.
The international panel on climate change says we need to get off fossil fuels.

More than happy to debate you. I have no need to insult you; I have only the need to point you in the direction of Kyiv to show why I will wipe the floor with any greenie arguments you may make.

Please advise who is on the panel, and indicate what, if any, personal interests they have in clean energy projects generally. And by interest, I mean direct or indirect financial interest, primarily. That includes fat grants for further climate change research, to be clear.

"Need" is just an argument from authority. Stop it. I know that you're much more intelligent than that. Let's talk about what we CAN reasonably do, and when.

Again, I'm not at all against the idea of transitioning to scalable, cleaner energy. I'm not on the "humans don't affect the climate" bandwagon. That said, public policy needs to be created and implemented by people who live in the real world, imperfect as it is - not some fantasy land where we can turn the taps off overnight and commute to work on the backs of thoughts and prayers...

 

[PV]

It's not an insult, I call it like it is.

You keep forgetting the "How".

How?

I give you debate points, and you conveniently skip over them. So, for in the interest of debating, please answer me this: are you prepared to accept the environmental consequences of 2-3 more Site C type projects? https://thenarwhal.ca/topics/site-c-dam-bc/

Me, I'm prepared for it, and readily accept it, because we'll need it.

Do you understand the concept of supply and demand, though? Electrical power is far more expensive to consume than gas, of all types.

Are you prepared to potentially triple the costs of heating your home? You start putting in the roadblocks to extracting and cleanly using gas, and force feeding electrical on all, we will only see the costs to consume escalate.

See, the problem is, you make these statements, but you never offer the substance to back it up. Start giving me the HOW if you are going to give me the WHAT and the WHY. Maybe then I'll take you more seriously. Till then, you are sorta dense.

You jumped to conclusions. You assumed I was opposed to Site C. I believe Site C is necessary and have never suggested otherwise.
Horgan decided to continue with Site C because BC need to continue electrifying and he has taken heat from some people.
Tough decisions also need to be made over fossil fuel use.

 

[Dude]

You jumped to conclusions. You assumed I was opposed to Site C. I believe Site C is necessary and have never suggested otherwise.
Horgan decided to continue with Site C because BC need to continue electrifying and he has taken heat from some people.
Tough decisions also need to be made over fossil fuel use.

Easy conclusion to jump to, with you. That being said, you still avoid answering pointed questions.

1. Are you prepared to accept the environmental consequences of 2-3 more Site C type projects?
2. Do you understand "Supply / Demand"?
3. Are you prepared to potentially triple the costs of heating your home? Maybe more if "we" were to drastically scale back the availability of gas.

 

[mtkb]

there is a reason they're called "champagne socialists" - cost isn't anything they've ever had to worry about in their lives, so why start now. Not saying PV is in that boat, but that's the general problem with many greenies...

 

[Dude]

there is a reason they're called "champagne socialists" - cost isn't anything they've ever had to worry about in their lives, so why start now. Not saying PV is in that boat, but that's the general problem with many greenies...

Appropriate term!

@PV , insulting you is just a matter of frustration. I'm more than willing to talk / discuss energy initiatives. I get it, I support it. I'm just pragmatic. Solutions need pragmatism, and a well thought out plan to progress the concept without cannibalizing yourself. @mtkb 's statement is that we have now found ourselves in a situation of fcuking ourselves over in the pursuit of being overly political and idealistic.

 

[mtkb]

*fcuking ourselves to the benefit of despotic regimes who throw LGBTQ people off rooftops - the social justice warriors conveniently leave that part out when they're focused on hugging trees...