Discussions

OK I have read through all the posts on this subject and would ask you to please lay out your solution, starting with what you have already done to mitigate our extinction.  
Maybe then when we all see what can be done we can follow your example as best we can.  
A further question, did you stand as candidate for the green party in this past election?

No, never run for public office. But I do agree wholeheartedly with Neil Young, who just the other day stated that the Green party is the only one that makes sense. People like to reduce the issues to I need food on the table. As Neil pointed out, this issue is just that, but fundamentally bigger, if there's going to be food, and if there will be a table. That's what we are courting.  
 
As for solutions, bear with, it will take a while to write. A functioning democracy would be a good start. A government typically representing 1/3 of the population, and a political system teeming with lawyers and corporate reps doesn't serve the public, IMHO.  
 
Government policy based on science would also be a big step up.  
 
I will list some ideas in a while, but 2 things - what do others suggest, and the scope of change required goes far beyond what the individual can effect. If WWII called for a wartime cross party cabinet, mass mobilization of industry and redirection of resources, this situation is ten times that. Hitler was practically nothing compared to the existential risks of what we face now.

I take offence that you would liken climate change to Hitler. My grandfather fought during the Second World War to give us the freedoms that we all enjoy today. You should not reference to the cruelty and unnecessary suffering caused by war and conflict. I hope that everyone here will join me and say shame on you! Especially so close to Remembrance Day.

Does not need the oil industry. It is a heavily subsidized industry. The revenue generated by the oil industry in Canada is nothing compared to that generated by agriculture. Oil is a drop in the bucket.

Ok.  I will divide my suggestions into 2 categories, the individual and collective.  Individual will never get us anywhere near what we need, and individual choices in a corporate marketplace often lead to greater resource use (waste).  
 
The most significant individual choice has to be vehicle fuel economy and lifespan.    Analysis shows a vehicle should be used for 18 years or more to lessen the carbon emissions, as near half are from it's manufacture.   An interesting note, it was calculated that if the US passenger vehicle fleet got 35mpg they would need no foreign oil.  Seems easily achievable and better than oil wars.   But that would cut corporate profits...  
 
We could easily be achieving 140mpg, it has been demonstrated decades ago.   Curb weight, wind resistance, etc.  But, as individuals we don't have those choices, the market decided otherwise.  
 
Housing can achieve net zero heating requirements if insulated to R60.  That should be a national priority.  
 
In Europe district heating is common, which allows the use of biomass for heating.   Incidentally, natural gas is about equivalent to coal with regards to global warming when fugitive emissions are considered, being 86 times more warming than CO2.  Some areas are banning new natural gas installations because of this.  
 
Consuming local food, and traveling less, especially air travel, are the other main individual goals.  Consuming less plastic,and generally consuming less seem the basics.  
 
Acting as a society opens many other options.  Setting far higher building codes and vehicle fuel efficiency standards would be valuable.  Lowering urban speed limits to 40km would greatly lessen traffic fatalities while saving fuel, and making the roads more amenable to bicycle and electric scooter traffic.   Speed limits were reduced to save fuel in WWII.  
 
CO2 emissions should be priced at a level that will send a message to the marketplace, and then let the need for efficiency hit home.  
 
Transport should be shifted to rail as much as possible, given that it is 10 times more fuel efficient, and far cheaper infrastructure to maintain, and all weather reliable.  
 
Those are some basic ideas.

Was saved during WWll by rationing . Get your facts right!

I'm sorry you take the comparison so personally.  
 
I was making the point that the scale of the disaster we face with climate change is almost limitlessly worse than what hunanity suffered in WWII. Even if Hitler had won.  
 
40 million roughly died in all of the second world war, and it has certainly struck you as an epic disaster. Billions are at risk of death with what we now face. Millions of species, and the very web of life itself are facing eradication.  
 
I observe Remembrance day every year. If WWII caused such a scar and mobilization, this is definitely cause for even greater effort and anguish.

Pllease give some citations of facts so that we can have a rational discussion. Also, it is unclear what exactly you are referring to.

Common knowledge that fuel was rationed during World War Two by government issued coupons. As regards your using the nazi threat as a comparison to climate change, I suggest that you don’t ,it is far to offensive to too many people and destroys your credibility! Two completely different situations!

the federal gov't were holding signs about the dinosaurs crying that the dinos didn't have time or some such crap> I for one am glad that dinosaurs went extinct! Because we humans wouldn't be around.  
 
Was reading about the ozone layer shrinking by 7 million miles over the years. Scientists stated that the shrinkage had nothing to do with what we humans have banned over the years and were calling the shrinkage a weather 'fluke'.

Yes, they are completely distinct situations. Billions dying is definitely a greater existential challenge.  
 
And regarding the national mobilizations quickly undertaken at the outset of WWII, the history is clear, and as I outline. We didn't become the 3rd largest military force on earth by the end of the war through rationing, or transform our manufacturing base .  
 
I would like to keep the discussion logical and credible.

You don’t know what you are talking about

I will let the forum judge what is more credible.  
 
A wise man observed that claims made without need of facts can be dismissed without facts.  
 
At the very least, please review the news reports and studies cited. If there are any alternative views that make sense, I will welcome that as good news.  
 
Being aware of the science and facts, I do not see any of this as a good news story. And what is certain is that the conduct and resource use that has brought us to this existential threat is not going to allow future generations to survive. A war scale emergency mobilization is our last hope.

Please quit speaking in circles. You began, in this thread, as credible and now you are contradicting yourself.  
 
When asked what you are doing, you have said there is little one can do individually and that we must work as a collective. Then, when you are faced with a question regarding worse polluting nations, you say we cannot afford to make choices based on others. You can't have it both ways.  
 
You keep bringing up Canada as one of the worst polluters per capita. The per capita argument is a red herring and I will back that statement up with an example. Let us compare Canada to China. Canada and China have approximately the same land mass and approximately the same volume of fossil fuel production. China emits 15-17 times the amount of GHGE. As they have 38 times the population and by using your logic, China should be praised for their GHGE per capita. I think not. Canada will always have higher emissions per capita for 2 reasons. Harsh climate and population density.  
 
Your claim of the study that states that if vehicles all got 35mpg, there would be no need for foreign oil is a good one. I wish you would tell Quebec that it would be a good thing if we didn't bring in foreign oil. They have consciously shown a preference for foreign oil and that is a major problem.  
 
And, I agree with others, please stop the Nazi comparison. You have made some decent points but you ain't winning any friends or support with that one.

" Please quit speaking in circles. You began, in this thread, as credible and now you are contradicting yourself."  
 
???  
 
"When asked what you are doing, you have said there is little one can do individually and that we must work as a collective. Then, when you are faced with a question regarding worse polluting nations, you say we cannot afford to make choices based on others. You can't have it both ways. "  
 
I wonder at times if communication isn't the issue on here, or maybe I'm just being trolled.  I have pointed out very important individual choices, and then contrasted them with what the market will allow us.  In order to make the fundamental improvements easily within reach will take a national mobilization similar to what we did on an emergency basis in WWII.  I then pointed out the huge strides that can be made working as a society.  
 
Maybe an analogy will help.  Good luck fighting a house fire with a garden hose.   Luckily we pay taxes for pumper trucks and emergency services.   (Personal vs collective action)  
 
I have also pointed out that Hitler's (and Japan's) aggression was seen as an existential threat, mobilizing nations like never before.  The threat we face now threatens us more fundamentally as a civilization, and will result in far greater death tolls than the second world war.  Thus the current emergency calls for a similar national mobilization to be able to respond adequately. I fail to believe the analogy is misunderstood.  This seems like trolling.  
 
The second world war mobilization is a good analogy for the current emergency, as Canada was flat broke from the great depression, rose vigorously to the challenge, completely modernized and reorganized industry and society, made a huge impact internationally, and then rode the greatest period of prosperity the world has ever seen.   Currently we hear business and individuals claiming that the "economy" will be angry if we reorient society, and we have to allow the ever wise "economy" to decide our strategic goals.   That was proven bogus in 1939 - 1945, and for the best 20 years post war.  
 
As Neil Young pointed out, this isn't an argument for climate action vs food on the table, it's having the sense to look 20 years down the road and realize we are risking not having food, or a table.  
 
Legal action has been started by young people, I believe in time they may win, as government inaction or worsening our emissions and not adequately preparing is legally crimes against humanity, and negligence.  We are laying a gigantic liability on future generations and the world's poor for the sake of our lavish lifestyle and corporate profits.    
 
It is sad how rabid the pushback gets, as soon as facts and logical emergency corrections impinge on people's comfort and entitlement.    
 
I would like to get the discussion back to facts, rather than personal attacks or statements without factual citations.  
 
The video posted shows Canada is the world's 7th largest polluter, with almost no population. That's very bad.  We could do far better.    
 
CO2 is a proven greenhouse gas, and methane is 86 times stronger.  
 
We have a 100% reliable weather record and CO2 record from ice cores going back 750,000 years.  Other methods indicate the current level of CO2 is higher than since the Permian die off, and has increased exponentially in perfect accord with the burning of coal and oil.  Much more moderate CO2 levels have been shown to be associated with global changes in climate.  
 
Our forests are in decline globally, giving up vast amounts of CO2.  This threatens to outstrip all human emissions causing a runaway feedback loop.  
 
Ice loss globally is rising exponentially in lockstep with rising global temperatures.   Ice melt leads to sea level rise. Globally 600 million people live at sea level.   All our critical transportation infrastructure is at sea level.

You cannot glorify war and conflict in the way that you are doing to argue a case, especially when you consider the pollution and carbon release caused by those conflicts through the years. The only way that the allies mobilized in the manner that they did which enhanced the economy somewhat was through huge debt and government subsidies, clearly unsustainable and not the way to make true lasting change. We each have to make small lifestyle changes which will aggregate into lasting change for the greater good. Lots of Little things will make a difference. Knee jerk reaction will not work.

Weather has only been recorded in the last 120 or so years. What you are referring to, I believe, is the scientific exploration of ice, sediment in the oceans, rock formations and tree rings that give a footprint of times long ago.  
Some interesting discussion on climate change and what we can do. There is no doubt that mankind is contributing to the CO2 levels but we, in some countries, are responding slowly to reducing the emissions by using new technologies. It is the countries like China that have no regard for the climate .  
However we will never stop climate change as the earth's orbit is ever changing. When you look back in time we have always had "climate change".  
At one time Greenland was green-that's how it was named. They have found evidence of vineyards in northern Scotland where grapes can not grow now.  
Then came the ice age and when it started to recede we had Lake Agassiz form in the prairies.  
During these periods there was no carbon emissions from man that caused climate change. It is a naturally occurring event which we cannot change.  
These changes will never stop, but we can continue to do our part to reduce (as we are) the emissions of CO2. We must also learn to adapt to changes that we have no control over.

"You cannot glorify war and conflict in the way that you are doing to argue a case, especially when you consider the pollution and carbon release caused by those conflicts through the years. The only way that the allies mobilized in the manner that they did which enhanced the economy somewhat was through huge debt and government subsidies, clearly unsustainable and not the way to make true lasting change. "  
 
Ahem.  
 
1945 to the late 60s was the most remarkable period of prosperity the world has ever seen. If that isnt lasting change, I can't see what would qualify. Sorry to burst your bubble.  
 
Please compare this to the unregulated injection of 3 trillion after the 2008 meltdown, which gained us practically nothing, except huge corporate bonuses and continued mismanagement and malfeasance.  
 
The basic premises of the free market knowing all and being most efficient have been soundly dispelled.

Solar and wind is cheaper than coal. Soon it will be cheaper than oil. Technology will make the choice for everyone.

Having not read through all the posts in this discussion, but reading the initial posters comments about human activity, I agree hundred percent.  
 
I can’t understand why, during the Election, no mention was made of the intent to target and decrease industrial farming practises as  
I believe it’s has contributed just as much, if not more, to the carbon emissions, poor water quality, destruction of land, etc in the world.  
 
70% of farmed land in the world is to feed the animals which in return feed humans. 7 billion cattle are Terminated yearly in the world for human consumption.  
 
Hunan do not need beef, Pork, nor poultry, nor eggs nor fish in order to survive, Not one iota!! A typical breakfast sandwich has three animals on it. A bacon and egg or sausage and egg sandwich With cheese contains beef, poultry, and pork: three animals for one piddly human meal!!  
These industries and whoever is behind producing and supplying these foods are irresponsible and are in it for the money Will do anything including sacrifice human health and the health of our planet to pad their pockets !  
This has led not only to the decline of earths status, but also to the decline of human health with cardiac disease, diabetes, stroke, high blood pressure, high cholesterol and cancer the leading causes of death all of which are preventable!  
People are walking around in a zombie like state if they don’t believe that this is not a major contributor to the environmental status of our planet!  
 
People can survive 100% and be more healthy and live to be functioning 90 and 100 year olds If they would just drop these items from their daily consumption. This would be a trickle effect....there would be farmland available to grow produce grains legumes etc to feed humans, There would be no more inhumane torture and killing of animals, there would be no more emissions related to the whole procedure of raising animals as feed....And the earth and humans in the end would be 100% more healthy!!  
 
Edited by BROCLAEVE, 2019-10-27 10:51:47

There have been a number of glacial cycles over roughly the last 3/4 million years. Long ago it was figured out that this coincides with a long term wobble in the earth's inclination, called precession. According to the earth's precession we should be starting into another ice age now. It appears that by coincidence forest clearing and rice farming (methane emissions) offset the cooling trend. Burning of coal and oil has now set it catastrophically in the other direction.  
 
I understand it is the latest right wing talking point to say "the climate has always been changing". And of course in the broadest sense this is true. Just as it's true to say every day is different. What is unprecedented is our burning all the fossil hydrocarbons we could find over 300 years, half of that total over the last 30. CO2 levels are now getting higher than any known time in the last 250 million years. It's pretty simple equation. You burn a ton of coal, and end up with 2 tons of CO2 in the atmosphere. It accumulates there, and over thousands of years will be absorbed into the oceans. In the meantime heating will occur, and in this case so much is there it will cause runaway natural emissions and climate change beyond anything our civilization or farming economy can survive.  
 
Sorry to burst the bubble, but the ice core records give us a very high quality year by year weather record, going back 3/4 million years. The air bubbles trapped the atmospheric gas concentrations, so they are indisputable to parts per million over that time. The isotopes of water tell the mean ocean surface temperatures, so we have a very reliable record in those cores. We also have historical data, and daily weather data going back 200 years in some places.  
 
Greenland was named so by Eric the Red around 1000 AD. It was largely a PR effort to get people to come from Iceland. There were green fjords, where they farmed for 400 years. It was green to some degree prior to 750,000 years ago.  
 
Lake Agassiz formed as the Laurentide ice sheet a mile thick melted back from it's maximum starting around 12,000 years ago.  
 
I'm calling for a fact check on the Scottish vineyard claims.  
 
Edited by GarryTait, 2019-10-27 10:59:21

I really have a hard time believing these "the sky is falling" people.  
Al GORE convinced millions that this was happening years ago, that Miami would be flooded now, half of New York would be flooded.  
From what i have read, the ocean levels have held steady for a hundred years.  
NASA says the Ant Arctic ice flow has grown more than it lost.  
These ones who organize these movements seem to be doing very well financially , are they not.  
Figure it out.

Straw man arguments.  
 
Please cite something factual to show when Al Gore predicted a 2m sea level rise in 20 years.  
 
The truth is there was never such a claim. I am sure it makes the rounds as disinformation in right wing echo chambers though.  
 
Sea level has risen roughly 30cm in the past 100 years, if memory serves, and the pace is hugely accelerating now. Antarctica, as practically every ice mass has been established as losing huge volumes. Satellite radar, and orbital deflections from mass loss don't lie.  
 
Greenland lost an estimated 11 cubic kilometers of ice in a single hot day this summer. Greenland alone contains enough ice to raise sea levels by roughly 28 feet. The glaciers and ice fields in the Rockies are similar, and in catastrophic decline without debate. West Antarctic peninsula, and the list continues.  
 
So, as comforting as it may be to cite unfounded right wing disinformation, the massive preponderance of scientific evidence says quite the opposite.  
 
"Figure it out "... (is that a respectful address on a public forum?)  
 
It would be good to have a discussion based on facts.  
 
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"  
 
Upton Sinclair

"but we can continue to do our part to reduce (as we are) the emissions of CO2."  
 
Actually, Canada's CO2 emissions are steadily rising. That's a big problem. The intended tar sands expansion would really blow the emissions budget.  
 
Given that Canada is experiencing very damaging effects of climate change, it's an issue of our own survival to try to lessen the emissions, and adapt to the necessary low emissions world to come, if we hope to survive as a nation.  
 
Change can be a big opportunity. Efficiency pays everlasting dividends. The money you never had to spend is the best kind. Working smart and not hard is always the best approach.

Quote @ "Housing can achieve net zero heating requirements if insulated to R60. That should be a national priority. "  
Who is going to pay for this retrofit of every home? Most homeowners are unlikely to be able to afford such a measure and there are not enough tradespeople to carry out the work involved.  
It means tearing out the whole inside of a home and making good after insulating, Then of course this means much more transport and materials at a great environmental cost.  
Completely impractical solution to climate change.  
The motor industry will never, unless under legislation , make vehicles that will do better mileage. It is not in their best interest.  
EV's are not a solution especially in our cold winter climate. How many would be stuck with dead batteries, if the snowstorm last week had been with minus 30 temperatures, while they were stuck on the highway for hours trying to keep the inside warm enough.  
You have still not told us what you are doing to combat this climate change you are ranting about.  
We need your answers please.

Who would pay for the retrofit? The home owners of course. The governing body, should they decide to take the problem seriously, could offer refunds on retrofitting. Manitoba Hydro already offers incentives to encourage efficiency.  
 
EVs would be a problem in our climate but the problems are not insurmountable. It only requires a concerted effort on behalf of regulatory bodies and manufacturers.  
 
Aside from that, I don’t think any one is expecting a complete and total switch from petroleum immediately but we do need to start looking for ways to end our dependence on it.  
 
Why the concern about what Garry is doing to combat climate change? His efforts here in this thread is what he is doing. Combatting misinformation and out right ignorance is a great way to help given it’s prevalence.

" Why the concern about what Garry is doing to combat climate change? His efforts here in this thread is what he is doing. Combatting misinformation and out right ignorance is a great way to help given it’s prevalence. "  
It is no good putting up arguments on this forum, they need to be addressed to the MP's who are the ones making the decisions. We who participate in these discussions are merely pawns in the game of life.  
My concern at what Garry is doing is that if he cannot come up with meaningful ways of making a difference even on an individual basis then there is not much point in having the thread.  
The biggest problem I see is that we have chosen to live in places that mankind should not live. We have adapted the land to fit our needs instead of living in those places where we did not have that need.  
Ultimately nature will win whether we are here or not.

Much of the heavy industry and manufacturing brought about during and post Second World War has disappeared as it was uneconomic to sustain those industries without hefty government subsidies. Subsidies in any form do not work, they just manipulate the economics in an unsustainable way long term.

..... these conversations do good. Conversation and dissemination of factual information is how we get anything done at all. The MP’s will respond to the rate payers, you are correct. But if the rate payers are not getting the information, or they are getting incorrect information, they cannot act effectively, thus conversations such as these.  
 
Pawns are an integral part of the game and are under estimated at great peril. Why would you be willing to abnegate your responsibility for action to Garry? Why cede the decision to him? Make up your own mind as to what you can do individually.  
 
As to your statement re “ chosen to live where mankind should not live” it is completely without merit.  
 
As to your last statement, well that’s the problem isn’t it? That’s why we need to have these conversations. Over and over again apparently. Nature does not care one iota whether we continue to exist or not. That’s why we should be paying closer attention to what it is doing.