Discussions

NOV 15 - 2018: A recent report by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change emphasized the need for people to consume about 30% less animal products. Eating less meat is one of a number of mitigation strategies suggested by the IPCC to overhaul agricultural and land-use practices, including the protection of forests. A study last month predicted that as a result of population growth and the continued consumption of large amounts of red meat and processed food in the West, the environmental pressures from the food system could increase by up to 90% by 2050. (CNN)  
__________________________________________________ ___________________________  
 
Conundrum for some of the farmer apostles of climate change. How can anyone quote the IPCC as gospel and not do their part to consume 30% less animal products?  
 
Name: a2b8c56e.jpg  
Views: 329  
Size: 86.9 KB

...not sure where to start.  
 
"Give incentives...". With what money? A subsidy to green tech? How will that get paid for? How about a carbon tax? The whole point of the carbon tax is to help with green tech while returning the money to the public with their taxes. So you want to subsidize green tech but dont want to pay for it. How does that work?  
 
As far as oil is concerned, the US has subsidized oil and gas to the tune of BILLIONS over the last years.  
 
"The United States has spent more subsidizing fossil fuels in recent years than it has on defense spending, according to a new report from the International Monetary Fund.  
 
The IMF found that direct and indirect subsidies for coal, oil and gas in the U.S. reached $649 billion in 2015. Pentagon spending that same year was $599 billion." - Rolling Stone magazine, May 8, 2018  
 
As far as believing is science, not sure what to say.  
 
"Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. What if someone says, “Well, that’s not how I choose to think about water.”? All we can do is appeal to scientific values. And if he doesn’t share those values, the conversation is over. If someone doesn’t value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove they should value it? If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic? - Sam Harris  
 
I trust science. Are their scientists that are corrupted or biased? Sure, but their work won't survive scrutiny. When the evidence is solid, you'll attack the scientist or his biases to undermine the evidence. At the end of the day, scientists are working on projections and models of what they BELIEVE will be the outcome or a possible range of outcomes. When they miss, you seem prepared to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Science has progressed and given us opportunity to reevaluate past evidence. If they come to a different conclusion than before, that's evidence for you that they dont know what their doing. In reality, all evidence and conclusions are always up for scrutiny. That's the basis for science.  
A scientist has a theory. He designs an experiment to test his theory. He examines his results from experiment to see if his theory agrees with the results. If the results disagree, the theory is wrong. He now either adjusts his theory or abandons it. If his theory is proven correct by experiment, it is presented to the scientific world for scrutiny. And it will be scrutinized for all time because as we progress, our knowledge increases.  
 
"Scientists dont know what's gonna happen and they are liars."  
 
I'll continue to read the evidence and trust in the science presented.  
 
You can continue to believe in your conspiracies, but it's at your own peril.  
 
Marpet

"Surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the opinions of experts consistently show a 97–98% consensus that humans are causing global warming."  
 
https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm  
 
Seems the 97% comes from more than just one thesis.  
 
Marpet

Please provide the evidence that they aren't "doing their part".  
 
Marpet

I’m not gonna go over the things you just said. I gave you actual facts these poeple are liars. They sent emails to each other explaining how they have to lie to convince the public and there history of telling the weather over 114 years is pathetic, who do you think is paying there bills to make these lies up , yep what is carbon tax gonna be in app 20 years. So my children and grandchildren won’t have money to enjoy things in life . The world is gonna end again in just a few years . One of the most useless organizations in the world want to govern and this is one way they wanna go about it. You do your silly things but I’m gonna enjoy life because it goes by to fast . The U.N. are a joke . I’m gonna have a few beer and enjoy life . Good bye .

...must have missed the part where you proved climate change wrong and all scientists as frauds.  
 
I'll go reread.  
 
Bye.  
 
Marpet

Acid rain laws stopped the killing of forests.  
 
CFC laws closed the ozone layer hole over Antarctica.  
 
The threats are real. We could eliminate the tax and outlaw gasoline / natural gas. The technology exists to replace them. It’s just a question of how do we do it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/bodfx1/carbon_dioxide_levels_in_atmosphere_measured_at/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

...how could Exxon predict, in 1982, what the CO2 levels would be by 2020 if the burning of fossil fuels has no effect on the atmosphere?  
 
https://www.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/boqspv/exxon_predicted_in_1982_exactly_how_high_global/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share  
 
The link to the Exxon report is in the article.  
 
Marpet

CO2 increase is the least of my worries. I'm not at all concerned if we warm a couple of degrees. will there be consequences... sure, but Earth has experienced far quicker and more devastating disasters than a 2-5 degree rise spread over 150-200 yrs. Humans should be the most adaptable species providing they are not stubborn (eg. continue to rebuild areas that are below sea level). Other animal species will be able to adapt, maybe even better than humans because they might actually move or adapt to coming changes. The change is really relatively slow compared to many other challenges facing those populations.  
 
There other things that worry me though. The high rate of chemical usage such as pesticides and herbicides for example. Do we really think that is less devastating on wildlife, our environment and our water quality than is CO2 (trace amounts of roundup can be found in most well systems). Over-consumption is another thing that is worse than CO2 levels. Food thrown out by stores (why they can't find a way to get most of it into the hands of soup kitchens is beyond me). High replacement rates for most still great products, that are simply thrown out. ect.  
 
Food production is also an area that represents a greater problem than CO2 increases. How much of the plant food grown in Canada or The USA is used for Human consumption? The vast majority goes into feeding animals (over 80% I believe). why do we even raise and consume pigs? One of the unhealthiest meats we consume at a mass rate. How many billions of people could we feed if we grew most of crops for human consumption? Desertification is another area that I believe has been improperly linked to CO2 increases. This is linked more to the removal of huge herds (cattle, buffalo, zebra, antelope...) that used to move through those affected areas. Those herds would manage grasslands preventing the buildup of dead overgrowth that limits new plant growth. They provide fertilizer for the new growth ect. But what do we hear? cows produce methane contributing to global warming... ya sure. We should be promoting farmers to use grasslands in danger of desertification for their cattle providing they keep them moving to mimic what huge herds did in the past. Contrary to popular believe, beef is healthier than pork. We Humans are idiots, we obsess about things we cannot change, and forget to do what we can change.  
Other aerosol pollutants are a far bigger worry for me than is CO2. Personally, I think the focus on CO2 is preventing other more important issues to be address and discussed.

Our federal Carbon tax is an example of a very inefficient way to try and force change. It’s a hidden tax that most people will not realize they are paying. It does not provide better alternative options. It does not fund alternatives, nor does it provide rebates for better options. It is not used to offset cost for better alternatives, making it at best a wealth redistribution scheme. Higher users are punished (companies) low users may get an extra $20 dollars in tax refund after their usage is figured in. Considering that transportation cost is passed on to the user, those extra $20 dollars may be used in inflation of goods related to the added transportation costs due to the carbon tax. There is no guarantee that the climate rebate will continue to raise at the same rate as the carbon tax increase if it will raise as all. It creates new tax payer paid jobs for the additional paperwork (taxpayer paid jobs are not the jobs that help the economy).  
 
In reality the Carbon Tax only drives inflation, through a hidden tax that most people wouldn’t even realize they are paying (they are afterall paying for gas, and few of us know what proportion of our gas bill is tax nor what its used for). The best chance for the current configuration of the carbon tax to have an effect, is by causing reaction such as this thread, and media attention that lead to conversations that keep the issue in the public eye. A good dynamic Ad campaign could do the same thing.

This whole Oil Vs Climate change is ridicules. Current estimates have us hitting peak oil within 10 years. Most assessible conventional oil is estimated to be used up in about 50 years. Maybe tech advancements can push that date out a little more, but we have to remember that is at current usage which will increase, likely bringing that date closer. Canadian Unconventional oil (Oil Sands) are estimated to have a life Index of about 110 years at current usage. This means the trans-mountain pipeline has to and will eventually be built to help wean the world of its dependency of oil. Most companies are aware of the limited amount of oil and are working on alternatives. Even South Arabia is investing heavily on alternatives to oil. We need to develop alternative not just because of climate change and the environment, but because there is a limited amount of fossil fuels. We should all support this move and buy alternatives to help drive the research and expansion of those technologies. If the switch does not happen fast enough we might be forced to go back to coal as it has the highest life index of the fossil fuels for power production, but also one of the dirtiest fuels. It is my understanding that every major oil company has an alternative research branch because they hill eventually have to pivot. What can the Individual do… Use their buying power and choice. If you buy new vehicles and spend over $40,000 on a vehicle, check the electric options and see if they could suit your needs before buying (some good options, with good range, increasing convenience already available with more options coming out within next couple years.). If your limit is under $40,000 check if any EV is available in that price range or consider hybrids. Consume less meat, especially factory produced unhealthy types such as pork. It is estimated that the environmental footprint reduction of switching to vegetarian is greater than that if one switched to public transport.  
 
Lets do what we can, for the environment, for the climate, but also for the future benefit of our children and their energy needs and their environment. We don’t want them to inherit a world where only the rich drive because of limited/underdeveloped alternative technology and where fossil fuels are no longer viable, and potentially highly polluted environments. 50 years isn’t that far away and supply issues will start within 10.