Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Furcifer]

I'm not sure it's possible for everyone to live closer to work. The greater Vancouver area is both very built-up and very expensive the closer you get to downtown. So if you're working in the downtown, you may not be able to afford decent accommodations close to your place of work--especially if you want to raise children.

Of course it isn't. People still have to work the fields and mines and fisheries and it's impractical to the point of being impossible to figure everyone can simply move to a city. In Canada we work the land, that means we have to get to the land to work it. It's not possible to farm 2000 acres and ride a bicycle, you need large energy consuming vehicles. It's equally impossible to fathom Canadians forgo farming and mining and instead assemble iPods. That's why it's ridiculous to expect economies like Canada to reduce energy consumption and emissions to the same level as smaller countries that don't depend as heavily on these energy intensive industries.

 

[Furcifer]

Snort.....90% of the GDP and population is concentrated in a very small region. Your position is unsupportable.

Right, well we'll get busy planting all those trees in the city instead of out there in the country. It's so inefficient. May as well move all the mines while we're at it.

I could travel 600 km for the same price in EU as in Canada even tho fuel was more costly the vehicles were far more efficient.....and I could do it faster - at 160+ not puddling along at 110.

Perhaps you missed the point. Passenger vehicles make up a very small portion of the fuel consumed. Improving the fuel efficiency in passenger vehicles to EU standards will have very little effect on net emissions.

Canada's small population does not support the density for passenger rail but certainly has and does support rail for industrial purposes.
Light rail is a no brainer for the GTA cept for the idjits under Harper and the likes of Ford.

Agreed.

There is ONE reason Canada earns Dino of the Day awards at climate conferences and it's not because of geography.....it's because of anti-science Harper and his cronies who would rather inflict Dutch disease on the rest of the nation while subsidizing fossil fuel companies to the tune of billions each year.

If you drop the politics and look instead at the facts, and the facts alone, you'll see Canada is well ahead of the world when it comes to "green" energy.

We could have done like Norway and nationalized the resource just as other nations have done, and like Norway put on a $50 a barrel carbon tax and been wealthy.

And everything costs more because of it. There's no net gain, and like I said no amount of tax is going to shorten the distance from Halifax to Victoria.

Instead Alberta has pissed it away and Ottawa has abetted it.
Geography be damned.....it's policy that's the issue in Canada.
We, like Norway have the wealth.....we just have, unlike Norway, idjits at the helm.

More politics. The fact remains everything is spread out here and that means it takes more energy to keep the economy going. It's as simple as that.

Some provinces are doing their part as are some states....but as long as the fossil fuel companies are offered a free ride on using the atmosphere as a sewer AND being subsidized to do ........we shall remain a well deserved laughingstock.

Emissions aren't coming from the "fossil fuel industry", the emissions are coming as a result of our energy intensive economy.

 

[Trakar]

No problem, allow me to explain them. Ethanol is also known as grain alcohol, and can be found in many adult beverages. The empirical formula is C2H6O and can be used as a fuel in in combustion engines. Methanol, also known as wood alcohol is also used as a fuel. Unlike ethanol, methanol cannot be made from corn and is typically made from the synthesis of methane gas.

Very Good! if you had also transcribed the little bit about how it came to carry the common moniker of "wood alcohol" I would have presented you with a gold star for the day! Keep this up and we'll have you up to speed on science basics in no time!!

Sweet corn is a very small portion of the corn grown in North America. People routinely make the mistake of comparing sweet corn to the corn grown for grain and that grown as silage. The corn used for ethanol isn't sweet corn you're right, but that doesn't mean the corn used isn't edible.
You've obviously been misinformed if you believe anyone is claiming sweet corn is used to make ethanol.

Ahh! so now you are backing away from your contentions that ethanol production is the primary (or even a major) factor forcing food prices to rise?

 

[Trakar]

Coming from an area of Canada that produces 96% of Canada's corn and relies heavily on farming I can tell you this is patently false. What works in the family garden isn't possible on a commercial scale! You've been mislead.

And exactly what factor comes into play that would prevent the replacement of current farm transport and production equipment with vehicles powered by electricity or non-fossil fuels?

 

[CapelDodger]

Here's some information from the Government:
Canadian Energy Facts

Together with the USA, Canada is one of the world’s most energy intensive economies and societies on a per capita basis. In part this is due to our size, climate and the weight of energy-intensive industries (e.g. aluminum, pulp and paper) in our economy.

Nothing new there.

Interestingly, climate plays a large role in our energy consumption.

Not surprising given Canada's latitude. It doesn't have a reputation for sun, sea and sand, but it does host Winter Olympics.

It's a particularly hard sell; trying to get people to spend money now to spend more money in the future.

Nothing new there either. I get the feeling you're not going to buy it.

Global Warming is a potential bonanza for Canadians, more arable land ...

For future generations, perhaps.

... with better growing seasons ...

Summers will stay just as short.

.. a net reduction less HVAC days ...

No idea what that means, but presumably something to do with living in the far north?

... and of course uranium.

Sadly, AGW will not create more uranium. Nobody's predicting that.

What's most on people's minds, I suspect (and in Russia) is more oil and gas in the Arctic Ocean. That's the bonanza.

As to the potential downsides, well, unknown unknowns will manifest soon enough.

Of course the alarmists have blinders on to what exactly we're doing here in Canada, the world's leader in clean renewable hydroelectric.

And famous for it; Canadians have been known to boast about shutting down the US by pulling a plug since at least my childhood. Canada has enormous potential, and has made good use of it.

What people are noticing now is something new - the tar-sands.

Not to mention producing 1/3 of the world's supply of uranium.

And again, nothing new there.

Despite having an energy intensive economy with a small population we are also responsible for producing a very large portion of the world's clean energy. Much more than our fair share. 58% of the electricity we use comes from hydroelectric another 16% from nuclear.

You have the geography for it.

The bulk of our emissions comes from driving around this massive country ...

That seems unlikely, given all the farm machinery and heating bills and energy-intensive industries, and of course those tar-sands.

... and I'll be damned if we're going to be taxed yet again bringing wood and other minerals to the the US, China and India.

Seriously World, do you want wood and uranium to build and heat your homes or do you want crappy furniture from Sweden to put in it? The choice is yours, choose wisely.

Not much to be said about that, really.

 

[CapelDodger]

I'm not sure it's possible for everyone to live closer to work. The greater Vancouver area is both very built-up and very expensive the closer you get to downtown. So if you're working in the downtown, you may not be able to afford decent accommodations close to your place of work--especially if you want to raise children.

Work will also move to where people live. In many cases, literally into their homes.

 

[CapelDodger]

There is ONE reason Canada earns Dino of the Day awards at climate conferences and it's not because of geography.....it's because of anti-science Harper and his cronies who would rather inflict Dutch disease on the rest of the nation while subsidizing fossil fuel companies to the tune of billions each year.

That and the tar-sands.

We could have done like Norway and nationalized the resource just as other nations have done, and like Norway put on a $50 a barrel carbon tax and been wealthy.

Acccording to some popular ideologies, this is impossible.

Instead Alberta has pissed it away and Ottawa has abetted it.

Ottawa's grip on any state is so feeble it can only pander to their desires. It's always been that way. Canada is a work in progress.

Geography be damned.....it's policy that's the issue in Canada.
We, like Norway have the wealth.....we just have, unlike Norway, idjits at the helm.

Elected idjits.

You'll recall me saying years ago that, for Canada and Russia, what's not to like about global warming? Furcifer has given that a little more weight, to the extent that he's an example of the typical Canadian voter.

There will be winners and losers from AGW, at all levels. Some countries will do well as a whole, but within them (especially the large ones) regions, towns and individuals will have widely-varying experiences. It's going to put a hell of a strain on the nation-state system, unsustainable in my opinion.

 

[CapelDodger]

Very Good! if you had also transcribed the little bit about how it came to carry the common moniker of "wood alcohol" I would have presented you with a gold star for the day! Keep this up and we'll have you up to speed on science basics in no time!!

No mention of "methanol will blind you", which was stressed to us at school. It's the take-away message of basic chemistry, really, meant to put you off brewing your own apple-jack. (It was that kind of school, but the same message was given to conscripts back in the day, and is actually good advice.)

Ahh! so now you are backing away from your contentions that ethanol production is the primary (or even a major) factor forcing food prices to rise?

Who knows, or ever will?

I personally think biofuels in general provide governments with a meaningless action they can point to while avoiding the real issue - that ways of life will have to change permanently, and not back to a golden-age. No politician likes to get up and make that speech.

 

[Trakar]

Of course it isn't. People still have to work the fields and mines and fisheries and it's impractical to the point of being impossible to figure everyone can simply move to a city. In Canada we work the land, that means we have to get to the land to work it. It's not possible to farm 2000 acres and ride a bicycle, you need large energy consuming vehicles. It's equally impossible to fathom Canadians forgo farming and mining and instead assemble iPods. That's why it's ridiculous to expect economies like Canada to reduce energy consumption and emissions to the same level as smaller countries that don't depend as heavily on these energy intensive industries.

We aren't talking about "energy" we are talking about fossil-fuel derived energy. Canadians are more than welcome to quadruple their annual energy generation capacity, I'm just advocating that they reduce and eliminate their use of fossil fuels.

 

[CapelDodger]

And exactly what factor comes into play that would prevent the replacement of current farm transport and production equipment with vehicles powered by electricity or non-fossil fuels?

Which could be produced on the farms. As horses were before the Oil Age.

Furcifer exemplifies the knee-jerk reaction that the Oil Age is the Modern Age (with a Nuclear Age hidden in there) and must be maintained at all costs. Of course, social systems that are emergent properties of cheap oil cannot survive it. They can limp on, gripping the crutch of past glories, but societies which grasp the nettle will be history's winners.

 

[macdoc]

Cuba managed to invert the current 12 calories of fossil fuel per calorie of food for production to 12 calories of food for one of fuel by moving agricultural urban for food stuffs and efficient use of recycled food waste for fertiliser.

All without significant technological help from the west.
Yes it was hard, yes it succeeded.
http://www.alternet.org/food/147256..._our_dirty_fossil_fuel_addiction/?page=entire

I'm sure the whale oil barons were wringing their hands as well.

 

[BenBurch]

Which could be produced on the farms. As horses were before the Oil Age.

Furcifer exemplifies the knee-jerk reaction that the Oil Age is the Modern Age (with a Nuclear Age hidden in there) and must be maintained at all costs. Of course, social systems that are emergent properties of cheap oil cannot survive it. They can limp on, gripping the crutch of past glories, but societies which grasp the nettle will be history's winners.

China is a sad example; The "Great Leap Forward" was in the wrong direction. It should have been in a direction of sustainability that would have ensured China a future. Yet another way in which Mao was a lousy student of history; Had he comprehended Thomas Malthus, he would have seen this coming.

But China not only entered the Coal age and the Oil age in record time, but they have succeeded in burning though a larger percentage of their fossil fuels in a shorter time than any of the Western industrial powers they wanted to emulate and exceed. Well, exceed they did. And if you want a prediction, I predict that China will crash hard in about a decade, and we may see the world's first nuclear civil war there.

 

[macdoc]

China has a variety of sustainable programs but indeed to pull the society forward it has embraced fossil as well.

Brazil tho is definitely on the correct track for sustainable...

Valtra's Brazilian factory readies first bio-ethanol/diesel tractor engine

Steven Vale

Monday 15 February 2010 11:52

Agco Sisu Power has developed prototypes of a tractor engine that runs partly on bioethanol produced from sugar cane and partly on diesel. Under development at the Valtra tractor plant at Mogi das Cruzas, Brazil, it is dubbed the Dual Fuel project.

The two liquids are not mixed. Instead, there are separate diesel and ethanol injectors. The ultimate goal is to burn 70% ethanol and 30% diesel, but at the moment the two engines being tested in the field use a 50/50 mixture.
It will be a two-tank system, says the company, with the ethanol tanks located either side of the diesel tank.

http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/2010/...y-readies-first-bio-ethanoldiesel-tractor.htm

Farms of all places are a natural for bio-gas and bio liquids fuels.

 

[a_unique_person]

Bob Carter, and Australian denier with a long history of lying, resorts to the most infantile 'statistics' to prove his case.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/bob_carters_trend_lines.php


Where did the red lines on his graph come from? No recognised statistical method, he just pulled them out of his ****.

 

[Trakar]

Which could be produced on the farms. As horses were before the Oil Age...

Or, at the least, through local co-ops, which would allow even the small farmers of a few tens to hundreds of acres to participate and be progressively productive and sustainably self-sufficient with respect to their energy needs. Then its back to making sure that there is a good rail network to cover the long-haul portion of harvest.

 

[Trakar]

...Farms of all places are a natural for bio-gas and bio liquids fuels.

Seems that way to me as well. Additionally, lots of sun and generally some wind throughout most farmlands I'm familiar with. Trailer mounted battery packs that are charged and then swapped out as required by whatever electric driven equipment needs of the time. Excess power is pumped into the grid providing an maintenance and improvement subsidy. The timing is good as well. Long summer days, lots of charging potential, short winter days, not much heavy equipment work.

 

[Furcifer]

Ahh! so now you are backing away from your contentions that ethanol production is the primary (or even a major) factor forcing food prices to rise?

I never made that claim, try reading this again

The same people complaining about rising food prices and future shortages are the same ones insisting that it needs to be turned into fuel.

 

[Furcifer]

And exactly what factor comes into play that would prevent the replacement of current farm transport and production equipment with vehicles powered by electricity or non-fossil fuels?

Mostly that they don't exist. That's prohibitive.

 

[Furcifer]

That seems unlikely, given all the farm machinery and heating bills and energy-intensive industries, and of course those tar-sands.

I think I see where you are becoming confused. I've rolled processing into transportation. I don't see how you separate them, we're talking about all those machines that make these energy intensive industries possible.

The mining and pulp and paper industries use more energy than the entire residential sector.

 

[Furcifer]

We aren't talking about "energy" we are talking about fossil-fuel derived energy. Canadians are more than welcome to quadruple their annual energy generation capacity, I'm just advocating that they reduce and eliminate their use of fossil fuels.

So are Canadians.

As soon as you come up with solar powered mining equipment I think we'll have it licked.

People seem to have trouble understanding that if we didn't mine and produce paper products here in Canada we'd probably be closer to carbon neutral than most European countries (having close to 80% of our electric come from nuclear and hydroelectric will do that for a country). In fact if Quebec suceeded going carbon neutral wouldn't take much at all.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how easy it for Quebec to go carbon neutral, but infinitely harder for BC or Alberta. It should be equally as easy to see how this applies to different countries world wide.