What are your thoughts on global warming?

[Meyer Jordan]

Oil supply can't meet our demand forever. Either it'll dry up or we'll move away from oil before that happens. What will Alberta do when either happens? Sure, no worries if it doesn't happen in our lifetimes, but there will be a point where it'll back Alberta into a corner if they don't come up with another source to feed their economy. Finding the solution now while oil is still plentiful would mean less impacts to your economy and less impacts to jobs, compared to waiting until it's too late.

Excellent point, JB. A point that has been made before. I would suspect that solutions are already on the planning table with the major stakeholders (read oil companies) waiting until losses can be minimized. This strategy may or may not prove to be beneficial to the average citizen or worker.

 

[MitchM]

There will always be a demand for petroleum products.
20% of a barrel of oil is used to make things like plastics, solvents, lubricants and asphalt. Some of the items used in manufacturing and used by alternative energy products.

The term "finding the solution now" is an easy statement to make, but means different things to different people. We need the petroleum profits to pay for more research into alternative fuels. Protesters are only delaying progress towards that. Right now they should be part of the solution by learning new technologies.
Protesting here is easy and safe. Complaining is easy and safe. Solutions are hard.

Why are we still importing 20% of our oil?
How is it ok to buy oil from foreign countries who have much worse policies toward the same environment - planet earth?

.

 

[MitchM]

Over the weekend in Calgary, near me, there was a protest held by a group of about 100 local first nations people in our largest shopping center. Christmas shopping is on, so it was a major disruption. They formed a large circle, banged on drums and sang songs.
They held the protest in support of of the Dakota pipeline protests presently taking place in the USA.
What did the protesters hope to accomplish?
I am one that believes that the best way to solve a problem is to shine a light on it, but how do we deal the fear mongering that takes place on both sides?
How accommodating do we have to be to allow protests?
When is protesting too disruptive?

These are not questions with simple answers.

Meanwhile, the USA is importing 500,000 barrels of oil per day from Nigeria, whose own lack of environmental standards are destroying mangrove forests and poor people are physically tapping into their weak pipeline network to steal oil.
Why don't we see that in the news?

Would you rather see oil processed in countries such as our own, who have the highest environmental standards and most advanced technological methods, or are you going to keep turning a blind eye to importing oil from countries that do far worse environmental damage to our planet?

I think we're being too accommodating to protesters here, while environmental organizations turn a blind eye to environmental damage abroad for more money and political power.

.

 

[mgmine]

So much to debate here. Is oil running out? Not that long ago the scientists were saying that it was and we would be out of oil in a decade. Now with shale oil we can go on for 1000 years. Same with global warming. First we were entering an age of global cooling according to the scientists and needed to do something about it. Spreading cinders in the arctic to absorb heat was one of the suggestions. Then there was the cry that we were cutting down all the forests now it's estimated that there are more trees than ever (yes in different parts of the world not in the Amazon forests). Polar bears are diapering or are they take a look at this "scientific" proof that proves they AREN'T. Really is this science or speculation? http://www.polarbearsinternational....ntists-say/are-polar-bear-populations-booming. Trump will never win the election and the list goes on. At some point scientists will agree 100% on things that can be proven. Until then it should be put up or shut up. Don't refuse to allow distention or debate which the main stream media, universities, grade schools and so on do. Don't ridicule people that just want proof. So how much proof is needed? Enough to justify changing humanity for ever. When the emails from climategate were leaked the media and scientific community circled the wagons to spin what was in the emails.

 

[mgmine]

What would it take to silence opposition to global warming? If it was "proven" that ink caused warming would the newspapers championing the cause agree to stop printing? How about texting? It has been shown that texting leaves a carbon footprint. So will all the millennial's stop texting? Obviously driving a car will cause carbon so would those so concerned stop driving and flying or heating their houses? If this is as serious as it seems to be then the earth should pretty much shut down. It won't because people only talk until it hurts them. Lets see a series of articles in the NY Times point out the benefits that a warmer climate would provide or possibly a series on PBS or the BBC. You won't see that because it goes against their beliefs. Show me someone that doesn't want clean air and clean water and I will show you a fool. Clean air and clean water is another problem and not a global warming one. When you mix the two you are now facing two enemies to fight.

 

[Mucky_Waters]

Quite often in nature problems just take care of themselves.

Frankly I don't see that humans have been particularly beneficial to the Earth and I've never seen a scrap of evidence that shows we are capable of globally uniting to the degree necessary to fix our current problems. Sure, we are one of, if not the most, intelligent creatures on Earth, and we've always been great at manipulating our environment and taking advantage of Earths resources to our own end, but having that superior intellect and resourcefulness doesn't mean we've been particularly virtuous or admirable about how we've gone about it. As a species we have always altered and raped the land where ever we've gone, but because of our previously small population in the past we've had a much smaller effect and the land had the time and opportunity to recover. However, it's this same "intelligence" and resourcefulness that has allowed our population to grow beyond what the Earth can naturally support. We've been on this track and going in this direction for all recorded history. It's taken centuries for us to get here and we are going faster than we've ever dreamed possible. The problem is that all the time we were moving along on this train, feeding the engine and designing and engineering new ways to make it go faster and faster, we never took the time to install a proper braking system.
Given human nature and the speed at which we are traveling, it's highly unlikely we will ever stop this industrial locomotive we are on on our own.

The Earth's climate has experienced large fluctuations in it's temperature since it's existence. This has no doubt led to the extinction of many species of life that could not cope with climates changes that became too hot or too cold for them. Still, life on Earth continues to survive.
Barring any divine intervention,there is plenty of evidence though that CO2 levels are rising because of human industry, and that it will have eventual repercussions on our environment. With that in mind, it seems to be unanimously agreed that the human population on Earth has grown too large and continues to grow out of control and this is really the main cause of the rising CO2 levels. It's also agreed that global warming, climate change, whatever you want to call it, will eventually have a serious negative effect on the human population which is really what is at the heart of this problem in the first place.......
I think it's just a mater of time until the train we are on derails and the problem "naturally" takes care of itself.

If survival on Earth was played like the reality TV show and all the species on Earth were able to take a vote which species to kick off this island, humans would be the first to go.
In the long run, "scientifically" and statistically it's been shown that the Earth will eventually succumb to one natural disaster or another. And it's also "scientifically" impossible for us to leave our solar system to find another habitable planet. So for our sake lets hope there really is a benevolent almighty creator watching over us that plans to save our sorry asses, because "scientifically" we're screwed.

 

[Becky]

Even if you refuse to believe it's man-made, surely you can see the things accused of causing it are equally harmful to the planet and our health regardless of global warming. Cities are not supposed to be filled with smog. Water is not supposed to be polluted. Forests are not supposed to be destroyed. Burning fossil fuels does release an unsafe amount of carbon dioxide.

Couldn't agree more. The fact of the matter is that humans are not living sustainably and that needs to change or we will all suffer in the long term.

The planet has weathered worse - it will be fine, but we won't. The planet will be a lot better off without us, to be honest.

Polar bears are diapering or are they take a look at this "scientific" proof that proves they AREN'T. Really is this science or speculation? http://www.polarbearsinternational....ntists-say/are-polar-bear-populations-booming.

Ummm that article states the opposite of that... their habitat is disappearing and when the area of sea ice falls so does the polar bear population.

 

[MitchM]

Not seeing any solutions posted so far...
Only complaints about the current state of things.



.

 

[Meyer Jordan]

Not seeing any solutions posted so far...
Only complaints about the current state of things.



.

The approach to solving this problem will, of course, differ from country to country, culture to culture....for each to determine the best way that they can reduce their Carbon Footprint.
For the Western world some form of Carbon Market may be the method to utilize. The United States has done this with the Sulfur Market with great results in combating acid rain.

 

[MitchM]

I alluded to my ideas before, I'll expand on them a bit.

-first, we all need to agree that processing petroleum is necessary.
-stop buying oil from countries with a lower environmental standard than ours (Canada and the US).
-stop blocking pipeline construction - pipelines are the most environmental friendly method for moving oil.
-make a condition of trade deals with other countries that they must adhere to certain environmental standards, otherwise they will face increased tariffs for selling their products to us. Those tariffs must be severe.
-be prepared to lower our own standard of living.

.

 

[Nepen]

Every steps in solution starts with a person. You can start with using reusable bags at the grocery store. Use reusable cups, paper, take only napkins you need to use, reduce waste, don't print if you don't have to, recycle, use solar water heater (if you can) etc etc etc... small thing but to reduce waste mean reduce amount they need to create new and if more people do it, more impact it will make. Imagine going to the grocery store and not have to use the plastic bags, which use fossil fuel to create, if 1000 people in that store use their own bag at least we reduce more than 1000 bags used that day (but average probably at least 20 bags per 1 week of grocery shopping for me) and imagine how many stores you have in the area, in the city, in the county, in the province, in the country.

I kept forgetting to bring my bags or have enough bags, but at least I try.

In Thailand out in the country, we dont always have running water (we like to compare it with a cat pee, how slow and little the water runs) so I know how to really conserve water and how to streatch it if I need to. I have not need to do that here but I still try to not use water excessively.We try to make our house energy efficient, not only it will save us money in the long run but it's better for the environment. I think conserving energy/water is also important as in using less natural resource meaning less energy to have to make them.

I think these are small steps everyone can do without having to change drastically but will have big impact if enough people do it.

 

[Meyer Jordan]

-first, we all need to agree that processing petroleum is necessary.

But must be reduced with more emphasis on clean energy....wind, solar, hydro, tidal and nuclear.

-stop buying oil from countries with a lower environmental standard than ours (Canada and the US).

How about just stop buying oil from other countries?

-make a condition of trade deals with other countries that they must adhere to certain environmental standards, otherwise they will face increased tariffs for selling their products to us. Those tariffs must be severe.

Agree, depending on economic development of each country.

-stop blocking pipeline construction - pipelines are the most environmental friendly method for moving oil.

Completely disagree as pipeline construction is an indicator of petroleum demand. Petroleum supply needs reduction, not expansion.

-be prepared to lower our own standard of living.

This is a gimme regardless of what form of action is taken to reduce the Carbon Footprint of a country.
.

 

[MitchM]

But must be reduced with more emphasis on clean energy....wind, solar, hydro, tidal and nuclear.


How about just stop buying oil from other countries?


Agree, depending on economic development of each country.


Completely disagree as pipeline construction is an indicator of petroleum demand. Petroleum supply needs reduction, not expansion.


This is a gimme regardless of what form of action is taken to reduce the Carbon Footprint of a country.
.

The only drawback to us not buying oil from other countries is that their citizens will be the ones that suffer the most. How many of us have the stomach for that?
We will have to watch as more civil wars and mass immigrations continue to wealthier European countries, disrupting our allies way of life. That could present some difficulties.
Perhaps we will then need to consider climbing down from our environmental high horse? That will cause protests over here.... again.

I think we are the best ones to process petroleum, if we care about the environment so much; but when you start to consider what that action will have on third world countries, I'm not so convinced that our environmentalists will stick by their convictions.
- which makes the whole exercise pointless and we'll wind up right back to where we are now.

.

 

[MitchM]

...


Completely disagree as pipeline construction is an indicator of petroleum demand. Petroleum supply needs reduction, not expansion.

...
.

If we are to stop buying oil from other countries, then we will need to temporarily increase our own production.

.

 

[Meyer Jordan]

If we are to stop buying oil from other countries, then we will need to temporarily increase our own production.

.

Although that may be true for Canada, it is not true for the U.S. as we are now producing enough energy to me our own demands. Importing is not needed.

The only drawback to us not buying oil from other countries is that their citizens will be the ones that suffer the most.

And which of these countries are the ones that would suffer...Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Venezuela? Which of these countries would it really affect there current standard of living?