Canada may exit Kyoto pact to save $$$$$

[Antiquehunter]

Oh sure - I don't disagree that burning wood is renewable. However look at the air quality in cities where wood burning is the primary source of heat. Also, if EVERYONE in Canada started to use wood for heat, our timber stands would be eroded pretty quickly. Presumably faster than they could be replenished.

There are much cleaner ways to generate heat. I'm not saying that in rural areas, where someone has access to plenty of free wood people SHOULDN'T use it for heat. But to suggest its practical or best for everyone to use is a bit short-sighted.

 

[Segnosaur]

Oh sure - I don't disagree that burning wood is renewable. However look at the air quality in cities where wood burning is the primary source of heat. Also, if EVERYONE in Canada started to use wood for heat, our timber stands would be eroded pretty quickly. Presumably faster than they could be replenished.

Another thing to consider....

How exactly does he 'burn his wood'? Unless he sets up a bonfire in the middle of his house, he's likely going to have a stove or fireplace of some type. That means he's going to need a certain amount of metal.

Refining the metal used to manufacture his wood stove requires energy, including fossil fuels and nuclear.

Of course, this is also giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming he cut the wood himself by hand. If he had any of his wood delivered, or used a chainsaw, that itself is also going to require the use of fossil fuels, releasing more CO2 into the air.

 

[Segnosaur]

...blather on.

I see....

First you lie when you say you "live on Solar" (which you don't... you live on a combination of solar and fossil fuels.)

Then your argument is further destroyed when it is pointed out how much energy (including more fossil fuel and even nuclear) it takes to sustain your life style because of the products you use.

And your whole response is to say "blather on"?

By that, I assume you realize that you're completely incorrect, and your only response is to run away from the argument. How exactly do you expect to be taken seriously when that is your response when your delusions are challenged?

The fact is, you could not live the life style you live unless fossil fuels were burned on your behalf, or nuclear power was used. Even if you did not use the energy directly, it was used in the products that were manufactured and purchased/used by you.

So, time to get off your high horse?

 

[bikerdruid]

I see....

First you lie when you say you "live on Solar" (which you don't... you live on a combination of solar and fossil fuels.)

i lied?
nonsense.
well over 90% of my electricity comes from the sun.
the small amount of petrol i burn to top up my batteries for a few weeks a year, hardly amount to 'living' on fossil fuels.
you just want to argue over nothing.

my point is that most everyone is capable of supplementing their power usage with renewables.
the status quo is destroying the earth.

 

[Segnosaur]

I see....

First you lie when you say you "live on Solar" (which you don't... you live on a combination of solar and fossil fuels.)

i lied?
nonsense.

I guess you must have a different definition of 'lying' then.

well over 90% of my electricity comes from the sun.

Ummm... just so you know, 90% is actually less than 100%. I know that that concept is a little complex for you, so if you need someone to explain it I might be able to recommend a math text book.

And secondly, as I pointed out (and you seem to be ignoring) is that your direct use of electricity is only a portion of the energy you (as an individual) are responsible for.
- The computer you are typing on was manufactured in a factory that was probably powered by the electrical grid (which probably used fossil fuel and nuclear power).
- The (probably) aluminum wiring in your home required a significant amount of electricity to process, which was (again) probably accomplished using some coal/oil/nuclear generation
- Many of the other products that you use were manufactured in plants using fossil and nuclear power. Even your beloved "wood heating" requires components that were manufactured out of metal (stove, flue, etc.) or involve the release of carbon (chainsaw to cut down trees, etc.)
- Because you live outside a city, your transportation requirements are increased. Unless everything is delivered via horse and buggy, your lifestyle requires vehicles that spew carbon dioxide into the atmosphere
I've explained all this before but you ignored it. Maybe you don't quite understand any of these concepts. If you have problems, again I can recommend some remedial materials.

the small amount of petrol i burn to top up my batteries for a few weeks a year, hardly amount to 'living' on fossil fuels.

Never claimed you "lived on fossil fuels". I claimed you lived on a combination of solar and non-renewable fuels (including fossil fuels, and indirectly nuclear).

On behalf of someone who once lived in an apartment with no such need for "battery top up" (and who's heating and light could be generated with no fossil fuels), I have to say "Thanks for spewing more Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere than I was!"

you just want to argue over nothing.

Nope, I want to correct your false claims.

You, on the other hand, want to make false unchallenged statements. And when your arguments are shot down and lying in tatters, you run away.

my point is that most everyone is capable of supplementing their power usage with renewables.
the status quo is destroying the earth.

And you are a part of the destruction. The difference between you and I is that I recognize where the problems are. You on the other hand (at least in your on-line persona... you could just be a troll for all I know) spout non-solutions to the problem.

The fact that there are significant environmental concerns regarding our energy usage (for electricity, heating and transportation) is not in dispute. The problem is that you (and others) do not seem to understand exactly what the problems are. Instead, you lie and make false 'claims'.

 

[Aepervius]

Oh sure - I don't disagree that burning wood is renewable. However look at the air quality in cities where wood burning is the primary source of heat. Also, if EVERYONE in Canada started to use wood for heat, our timber stands would be eroded pretty quickly. Presumably faster than they could be replenished.

There are much cleaner ways to generate heat. I'm not saying that in rural areas, where someone has access to plenty of free wood people SHOULDN'T use it for heat. But to suggest its practical or best for everyone to use is a bit short-sighted.

On burning wood:

my parents burn 14 cubic meter of wood each winter. looking online people speaks of 3 to 4 cords of wood. Which correspond to 11 to 15 cubic meter. Being generous we willa ssume we change the forest to fast growing trees , well managed forest, and they give up around 20 cubic meter of wood epr year (which is already the *high* end, as normal forest give 2 to 3 cubic meter of wood per year unless you deforest).

Now I guess unless we also change family and housing, you would need about to use that quantity of wood (14 cubic meter) per around 10 persons, roughly, after that unless you pack people in the same room, you won't get much better even with good insulation.

That means we need 3 million fire place at 14 cubic meter, 42 million cubic meter, divided by the 20 per year , we need 2 millions hectare to just use wood for heating instead of anything else. That means alone for wood firing purpose would need to cut and manage forest of 20.000 quadrat kilometer just for heating. Best case scenario (more realistically 160.000 quadrat kilometer for comparison germany is 350.000 quadrat kilometer). Now canada is big and has a lot of forest, but keep in mind somebody must transport all that wood.

Now let us try to apply that to country which have 1/30 of the surface for 3 time the people. Like germany or any other europe country.

And that does not even take into account the ashes removal, the air quality, the carcinogenes in wood smok, the number of *fire* hazard increasing etc...

If we have to go back to wood we are screwed.

 

[stilicho]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...7-billion-bill-by-exiting-kyoto-protocol.html

"Canada, the country furthest from meeting its commitment to cut carbon emissions under the Kyoto Protocol, may save as much as $6.7 billion by exiting the global climate change agreement and not paying for offset credits.

Canada, which has the world’s third-largest proven oil reserves, would be the first of 191 signatories to the Kyoto Protocol to annul its emission-reduction obligations. While Environment Minister Peter Kent declined to confirm Nov. 28 that Canada is preparing to pull out of Kyoto, which may ease the burden for oil-sands producers and coal-burning utilities, he said the government wouldn’t make further commitments to it. "


Won't be the last.

In case anybody hasn't chipped in, it's about time we left the Kyoto Clusterbleep. The only reason we signed it in the first place was to try to look good.

 

[Ziggurat]

wood from the forest i live in.

So you own a forest. Which makes you rich, really.

Why do you have poor people?

 

[Stacko]

Why do you have poor people?

Because calling them peasants is so 15th century.

 

[Segnosaur]

I have to admit, I'm quite surprised that people are not more vocal about the possibility we might withdraw from Kyoto (and some even seem to be in favor of it.)

I'm assuming that there aren't a lot of "global warming deniers" here, so I'm assuming those in favor of withdrawing and/or are being quiet about it probably see the need to address global warming but just see Kyoto as the wrong way to go about it. (That's kind of the way I feel about it too.)

 

[Segnosaur]

wood from the forest i live in.

So you own a forest. Which makes you rich, really.

I think the government should step in and confiscate his forest. Nationalize it and distribute it to the poor. Equality for all! Power to the People! No evil forest-holding oligarchies!

 

[Furcifer]

I guess you must have a different definition of 'lying' then.

Ummm... just so you know, 90% is actually less than 100%. I know that that concept is a little complex for you, so if you need someone to explain it I might be able to recommend a math text book.

And secondly, as I pointed out (and you seem to be ignoring) is that your direct use of electricity is only a portion of the energy you (as an individual) are responsible for.
- The computer you are typing on was manufactured in a factory that was probably powered by the electrical grid (which probably used fossil fuel and nuclear power).
- The (probably) aluminum wiring in your home required a significant amount of electricity to process, which was (again) probably accomplished using some coal/oil/nuclear generation
- Many of the other products that you use were manufactured in plants using fossil and nuclear power. Even your beloved "wood heating" requires components that were manufactured out of metal (stove, flue, etc.) or involve the release of carbon (chainsaw to cut down trees, etc.)
- Because you live outside a city, your transportation requirements are increased. Unless everything is delivered via horse and buggy, your lifestyle requires vehicles that spew carbon dioxide into the atmosphere
I've explained all this before but you ignored it. Maybe you don't quite understand any of these concepts. If you have problems, again I can recommend some remedial materials.


Never claimed you "lived on fossil fuels". I claimed you lived on a combination of solar and non-renewable fuels (including fossil fuels, and indirectly nuclear).

On behalf of someone who once lived in an apartment with no such need for "battery top up" (and who's heating and light could be generated with no fossil fuels), I have to say "Thanks for spewing more Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere than I was!"

Nope, I want to correct your false claims.

You, on the other hand, want to make false unchallenged statements. And when your arguments are shot down and lying in tatters, you run away.


And you are a part of the destruction. The difference between you and I is that I recognize where the problems are. You on the other hand (at least in your on-line persona... you could just be a troll for all I know) spout non-solutions to the problem.

The fact that there are significant environmental concerns regarding our energy usage (for electricity, heating and transportation) is not in dispute. The problem is that you (and others) do not seem to understand exactly what the problems are. Instead, you lie and make false 'claims'.

^this

Without berating bikerdruid too much I think it's important to make a clear distinction between "energy use", which produces CO2 and "electricity use", which at least in Canada produces very little CO2.

I don't think he realizes that his living in an area where there's enough trees to harvest the wood to heat his home actually contributes more to Canada's emission problems than some yuppie living in fancy loft apartment in down town Toronto.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Go look at some pics of the US Civil War, one thing that really stands out from that era is how denuded the countryside was, the hills in the background are bare, barely a tree in sight. Today those same hills are covered in trees.

Oh sure - I don't disagree that burning wood is renewable. However look at the air quality in cities where wood burning is the primary source of heat. Also, if EVERYONE in Canada started to use wood for heat, our timber stands would be eroded pretty quickly. Presumably faster than they could be replenished.

I was thinking "Battle of Stalingrad", myself. During the sieges russian civilians and later german troops stripped the ground of all plant matter that could be burned or eaten.

Trying to convert a modern urbanized population to an 1800s lifestyle would cause an arboreal apocalypse.

I don't think he realizes that his living in an area where there's enough trees to harvest the wood to heat his home actually contributes more to Canada's emission problems than some yuppie living in fancy loft apartment in down town Toronto.

Someone living between Pickering, Darlington and Bruce whose home or apartment runs on electric space and water heating is going to have a carbon footprint that makes Bikerdruid look like the Exxon Valdez.

 

[Ziggurat]

Because calling them peasants is so 15th century.

Typo. I meant to ask, "Why do you hate poor people?" But your point about peasants is still on target. That's how bikerdruid wants people to live.

 

[Stacko]

Typo. I meant to ask, "Why do you hate poor people?" But your point about peasants is still on target. That's how bikerdruid wants people to live.

I know. I was just having fun with it. After I posted it, I wished I hadn't removed the part about owning land because it have feudalism comparison better.

 

[pchams]

Without wanting to enter the fray...

I have a cousin who sells solar systems in rural Ontario. There seems to be some sort of provincial gov't sponsored plan to subsidize /support solar power production. If I understand it correctly, the gov't will sign a contract to buy all surplus solar-produced power supplied to 'the grid' for a set price, over a certain number of years. On the strength of this contract, a landowner can secure financing from a Canadian bank, to buy a solar panel install that will effectively pay for itself in about 5 years, and then be a revenue stream for the land owner.

My cousin in this business, is currently at the whim of the government's wavering on continuing the program. Also, he admits that the price of the components has already dropped significantly, and he expects it to continue to drop, such that in the next 5 years or so, this will no longer require such a massive up-front investment.

I also wonder which solar powered factory is producing bikerdruid's panels/wire/fuses/batteries etc.

As the entry costs drop, I suppose that at least to supplement power production, solar COULD become more viable - assuming you already have a chunk of land upon which you are willing to erect a rather ugly set of panels.

At the detriment of the grid users who are charged extra to supplement the unrealistic prices the govt. is paying the solar producers. That rate is unsustainable. It's a boondoggle.
Recovery costs are closer to 15 years as well.

 

[Antiquehunter]

At the detriment of the grid users who are charged extra to supplement the unrealistic prices the govt. is paying the solar producers. That rate is unsustainable. It's a boondoggle.
Recovery costs are closer to 15 years as well.

Well - my only source is clearly from one side of the equation, and I don't pretend to be an expert nor a 'fair & balanced' source on this issue. I don't live in Canuckistan, so I haven't googled or investigated. He SAYS that the gov't is paying the same for the solar power that they would be from whatever power source would be providing to these more remote areas - often a US producer. And I'm pretty sure his projects are geared towards 5 year financing packages - whether or not this is because of a larger downpayment requirement or not I don't know. But certainly when he talked about it with me, he wasn't talking 15 year deals.

I don't know even how power is managed in Ontario, but it sounds to me like privatising the whole shebang is probably the way to go. The gov't should regulate and oversight (to ensure that no one gets left out in the dark for example) but probably not be in the business of running a utility - if indeed that is what the Ontario gov't is doing.

 

[AlBell]

But that's exactly my point, WildCat. The "lunatic fringe" (your words, not mine) is so small that their turnout can't affect the race. And, they are already so pissed at Obama that they may well not vote anyway, no matter how the pipeline decision might have gone. The only bloc large enough to have an electoral effect is the large bloc of mainstream environmentalists. Their vote MIGHT have been affected by the pipeline decision but you specifically excluded them from your comment.

LOL.

Great oxymoron.

 

[bikerdruid]

So you own a forest. Which makes you rich, really.

Why do you have poor people?

i have trees on my land, surrounded by thousands of acres of crown forest.
when i harvest deadfalls near my home to heat my house, i am not producinbg as much carbon as a city dweller burning gas, piped through hundreds of miles of pipeline.
really, get a life.

your smarmy and insulting posts are certainly judged as such by the many reading these threads.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

when i harvest deadfalls near my home to heat my house,

You can't provide warmth to an entire country from just deadfalls. If we, and I mean all of us, were to adopt your lifestyle, we would have to kill millions of living trees to stave off a national epidemic of hypothermia (see Aepervius's calculations above).

i am not producinbg as much carbon as a city dweller burning gas, piped through hundreds of miles of pipeline. really, get a life.

You are producing a great deal more carbon than the hypothetical nuclear user Furcifer and I described.