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

[Roma]

Here are a couple of examples that show me how blissfully ignorant the planet's political leaders are when it comes to science:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2404162/posts
I think everybody is clear on the science. I think scientists are clear on the science ... I think that this notion that there's some debate . . . on the science is kind of silly," said President Obama's Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs

This is what former Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau said to a reporter many many years ago when asked if Canada would support George Bush in the Iraq war : "Show me the proof... the proof is the proof." (okay English was Trudeau's second language but he was no fool and neither is the present Canadian Prime Minister of Canada)

Sooo....I try to muster all of my critical thinking when I hear a politician saying something that is better left to scientists, and I think I have just enough education and just enough skepticism to doubt the "truthiness" of the Kyoto supporters.
Perhaps instead of discussing things like burning wood and solar problems a larger picture should be explored, something like: would it make any difference at all if all the people in the entire world lived in caves and ate berries ? Would the climate still fluctuate and change in perhaps a pattern or something like that ? and Who is benefiting financialy from the Kyoto accord ? You know.... follow the dollar.

 

[Stout]

The carbon released into the atmosphere is carbon that's been in the biosphere in a relatively recent, geologically speaking, time when compared to the carbon that's been sequestered underground released by burning fossil fuels.

From a combating climate change perspective, burning wood is a heck of a lot more green that burning gas or oil.

Burning wood isn't sustainable.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

So, time to get off your high horse?

And burn it.

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.

I think that's true for virtually every nation: To look good and follow the groupthink.

btw, I love the word "clusterbleep"

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.

Probably more.
Not only that, you are stealing the environment from unknown quantities of animals and a natural resource from the state.

From a combating climate change perspective, burning wood is a heck of a lot more green that burning gas or oil.

Burning wood isn't sustainable.

On second thought, he shouldn't burn the horse.

 

[bikerdruid]

From a combating climate change perspective, burning wood is a heck of a lot more green that burning gas or oil.

......................................

Burning wood isn't sustainable.

am i missing something here?
those two statements seem contradictory.

 

[bikerdruid]

Probably more.
Not only that, you are stealing the environment from unknown quantities of animals and a natural resource from the state.

what a truly stupid statement.

 

[Stout]

am i missing something here?
those two statements seem contradictory.

I meant it's not sustainable as a replacement energy source for the energy we, as a global population, gobble up fossil fuels. Kyoto addresses climate change as a global event.

Wood is great for heating small town Canada

Could you imagine the combination of smog and smoke if a city like Vancouver started heating with wood ? Ugh, I remember when it used to be the norm to burn leaves and garbage in your back yard, they banned that for air quality reasons.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

what a truly stupid statement.

Not really; it is illegal here in some areas for reasons including those I mentioned.

What is stupid, is your claim of stupid.

An example..

http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/article/2011/09/06/378341_latest-news.html

 

[bikerdruid]

I meant it's not sustainable as a replacement energy source for the energy we, as a global population, gobble up fossil fuels. Kyoto addresses climate change as a global event.

Wood is great for heating small town Canada

Could you imagine the combination of smog and smoke if a city like Vancouver started heating with wood ? Ugh, I remember when it used to be the norm to burn leaves and garbage in your back yard, they banned that for air quality reasons.

i never suggested that wood should heat the cities, ntr that everyone should live as i do.
i suggested that everyone should try to live more sustainably.
i have been told here that livingf with wood heat i have a huge carbon footprint.
it has even been suggested that by living with wood heat, i rob the forest.
it is exactly the opposite. i harvest sustainably. the poplars in my foirest, only live to about 10 inches in girth. by harvesting the odd one to burn, opens the understory spruce to grow, as is the natural succession of the forest. i also harvest some recent deadfalls.
my home is very well insulated, and i burn very little wood.
the naysayers can rant and rave all they wish.
i tread the earth softly.

 

[Stout]

i tread the earth softly.

I have no reason to doubt you.

 

[bikerdruid]

I have no reason to doubt you.

thankyou.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

i suggested that everyone should try to live more sustainably.

Breeder Reactors: A Renewable Energy Source

Nuclear Fission Fuel is Inexhaustible

The criteria by which wind, solar, hydro, wave power and geothermal are determined to be renewable apply equally to nuclear energy.We cannot burn enough nuclear fuel to exhaust the Earths supply in the remaining time that this planet will be habitable to us.

i have been told here that livingf with wood heat i have a huge carbon footprint.

I never said that, I said only that your carbon footprint is larger than someone who gets all their energy from nuclear.

i tread the earth softly.

Only by using the most ecologically invasive means of harvesting energy ever developed (not to mention the damage to the Chinese countryside you are responsible for).

 

[Roboramma]

Sooo....I try to muster all of my critical thinking when I hear a politician saying something that is better left to scientists, and I think I have just enough education and just enough skepticism to doubt the "truthiness" of the Kyoto supporters.

So go look at what the science says rather than simply listening to politicians...

would it make any difference at all if all the people in the entire world lived in caves and ate berries ? Would the climate still fluctuate and change in perhaps a pattern or something like that ?

That's a scientific question. Have you actually looked at what the answer is?

 

[Antiquehunter]

would it make any difference at all if all the people in the entire world lived in caves and ate berries ?

Proabably. I get awfully gassy from berries.

 

[Stout]

thankyou.

You're welcome

I've noticed a tendency ( not here, but among "activists' ) to write AGW off as a political issue, see Derrek Jensen for instance, and ignore the personal. IMO, western society is slowly becoming more green.

I was watching a show on rising sea levels last night on NatGeo, interestingly, the show predicted that defending the land from rising sea levels was going to be the number 1 industry by the year 2100.

 

[Stout]

I never said that, I said only that your carbon footprint is larger than someone who gets all their energy from nuclear.
.

That would be debatable, since, as I noted above, the carbon in wood isn't sequestered from the atmosphere in any meaningful way. I'm about as pro nuclear as you can get. I'm a realist and acknowledge that solar and wind have a certain romantic appeal but don't even come close to meeting our energy demands.

I could pull off the rural hippy lifestyle, my wife and kid OTOH, no freakin' way. I'd be spending way too much time driving and quite possibly negate any carbon savings I'd be making by using wood.

Build those reactors and bring on the electric cars. Mach Schnell

 

[Segnosaur]

I never said that, I said only that your carbon footprint is larger than someone who gets all their energy from nuclear.

That would be debatable, since, as I noted above, the carbon in wood isn't sequestered from the atmosphere in any meaningful way.

Yes it is.

On the other hand:
- The wood is probably cut with a chainsaw into more useful pieces (and that's assuming the wood user doesn't get his wood delivered by a truck.)
- If they're living out in the country (where they have easy access to the wood) the homeowner burns a gas during transportation to and from the city (in order to get supplies, go to work, etc.)

Compare that to a city dweller who uses electricity generated from nuclear for both heating and appliances. Their power comes from a source that has no carbon footprint, and unlike bikerdruid, they don't have to burn a lot of extra gas in order to get too and from the city. (And yes, some city dwellers own cars, but due to shorter distances and things like economies of scale, they use much less fuel.)

i tread the earth softly.

I have no reason to doubt you.

Actually you do have reason to doubt him.

While he brags about his use of solar and wind (which of course have to be suplemented by gas-burning), he also lives a lifestyle that requires a lot of gas to be used in transportation.

 

[Segnosaur]

Sooo....I try to muster all of my critical thinking when I hear a politician saying something that is better left to scientists, and I think I have just enough education and just enough skepticism to doubt the "truthiness" of the Kyoto supporters.

So go look at what the science says rather than simply listening to politicians...

Problem is, Kyoto is more than "just science".

Science might tell us that the average temperature of the earth is rising and humans are contributing to that. Kyoto may even be partly based on it. But the solution of how to handle the problem is highly political and doesn't have a 'scientific' answer, and that's why many people (who actually believe in human-contributions to global warming) doubt the usefulness of Kyoto.

For example:
- The 'targets' for Kyoto were based on 1990 levels. Why 1990? After all, many countries (e.g. Germany) underwent massive changes at the time (reunification, with the closure of "inefficient" eastern German industries) which helped it meet its targets without doing much of anything
- Emissions trading is suspect, as the 'credits' which are being purchased are often based on faulty reasoning

Personally, I think rather than paying attention to a flawed Kyoto agreement, Canada should basically "go it alone"... build reactors to cut down our use of coal, and invest a ton of money in alternative technologies (research into things like bioengineered oil-from-bacteria and the like.)

 

[Furcifer]

We have some great examples of "remote" living here in Canada and the true costs of sustaining these outposts are evident in the high cost of goods and services. Unless you're paying $8 for a gallon of milk and $10 for a box of Cheerios you're probably not "off the grid".

No offense to bikerdruid, but his views somewhat remind me of the Freedom Of The Land people in the sense that they have no problem enjoying infrastructure we all pay into a tax paying citizens, but when it comes to paying for it suddenly it's not their problem. Likewise your carbon footprint extends well beyond the breaker box on your house. If you enjoy clean water, a telephone, a fire route number and mail service you have a much larger carbon foot print than you probably think.

The next time you sit down in front of your fireplace and have a glass of milk and read your mail, consider all of the energy that went into making all of that happen and where it all came from. Then multiply that by 20 000 and start comparing it to a city (heck didn't the WTC house about 20 000?) where the mail in centralized, they all heat with natural gas in high efficiency furnaces and they all live within 2 miles of where they work etc.

I think we all agree we can do more, but we can't do Kyoto more without totally restructuring Canada. And when we're talking about Kyoto, talking about putting up a wind turbine and burning hard wood in an airtight furnace is misleading because it isn't a solution to meeting Kyoto. Not by a long shot.

 

[Segnosaur]

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.

No, instead you are producing a ton of carbon dioxide living a life style that requires the use of gas powered transportation between your house and whatever city you work and/or get supplies from.

Oh, and you are definitely contributing more Carbon Dioxide than someone who lives in a city supplied by nuclear power, who heats their home with electricity and uses public transportation/walks. Strange how you keep ignoring that point. Wonder why that is?

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

You know what else is judged?

When someone lies in the forum (i.e. saying "I live with solar" when they actually live with a combination of solar and fossil fuels.)

When someone is a complete and total hypocrite (i.e. when they claim they minimize their ecological footprint, but ignore the excessive amount of carbon dioxide they generate from their lifestyle due to transportation, etc., or when they claim they "don't need nuclear", yet ignore the fact that their lifestyle actually depends in part on nuclear energy due to the products that they use.)

When someone is confronted with arguments which basically expose their failures, and instead of dealing with the issue they run away and ignore those things.

Hmmmm... who might have done those things? I'll give you a hint... it rhymes with "dikerbruid".

Not only that, you are stealing the environment from unknown quantities of animals and a natural resource from the state.

what a truly stupid statement.

Do you have a permit? You claimed you collect firewood from crown land. Not sure what the laws are where you live, but here in Ontario you need a permit from the government to collect firewood from crown land. (See: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Forests/2ColumnSubPage/STDPROD_080597.html)

The wood on crown land (even the dead trees) belong to everyone in the province or country. By taking those trees you are basically taking from the rest of us citizens.

i never suggested that wood should heat the cities, ntr that everyone should live as i do.
i suggested that everyone should try to live more sustainably.

Yet you seem to have taken a strong anti-nuclear stance, even if nuclear power will be useful in giving us a more sustainable life style.

i have been told here that livingf with wood heat i have a huge carbon footprint.

Its not the wood heat that gives the 'huge carbon footprint' (although I'm sure that whatever tools you use to cut the wood into usable portions probably contribute.)

However, in order to use that wood, you have to live in a rural area, which requires more use of energy in transportation... that is what contributes to your carbon footprint.

it has even been suggested that by living with wood heat, i rob the forest.
it is exactly the opposite. i harvest sustainably.

Well, as I pointed out before, it wasn't "the forest" that you were robbing, it was your fellow citizens.

Oh, and by the way, dead trees do actually serve a purpose in the forest ecosystem. Dead and/or rotting trees are often used by various species for nesting. Decaying trees retain moisture and nutrients useful for new growth. See: http://ohioline.osu.edu/w-fact/0018.html

the poplars in my foirest, only live to about 10 inches in girth. by harvesting the odd one to burn, opens the understory spruce to grow, as is the natural succession of the forest.

Ummm... the 'natural succession of the forest' is to leave things completely undisturbed and let whatever tree species that would exist grow naturally.

 

[Ziggurat]

i have trees on my land, surrounded by thousands of acres of crown forest.

Which makes you rich.

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.

And you are able to do this because you are rich, and have all this land at your disposal. And screw poor people who don't.

really, get a life.

Hey, I'm not the one who wants poor people to suffer just because they aren't rich like me.

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

Sure, blame me for your hatred of the poor.