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

[Stout]

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.)

When I was burning a lot of wood, yes I had to drive an hour each way to pick up a load, and yes i had to chop it up into liftable pieces with a chainsaw so there was an investment, so to speak, in burning fossil fuels to retrieve that wood. I split it by hand though, and benefited from that old adage that burning wood, warms you twice, one time when you're burning it, the other when you're splitting it.

I never pulled it off as being my only source of heat. I had a regular job and didn't want to have to worry about burning embers or, more specifically chimney fires when I wasn't home so my wood burning was supplemented with electric heating. How much did I save by burning wood evenings and weekends and did those savings offset the fossil fuels used to get the wood ? I don't know. Once we factor in I'm on hydroelectric power the waters become rather muddy.

Oh yes I had a car at that time too, and the foray out to get wood were outdoor adventures so efficiency was sacrificed there too. I did burn beach wood ( super fast and easy to get, just lots of trips from the beach to the car with armloads ) but after my neighbours had a chimney fire and the fire department was extremely negative about beach wood and the creosote component, I shied away from it.

For "greenness". yes, I'd put my city dwelling, work from home lifestyle up against a rural dweller any day. Where it gets weird is food consumption. I'm a heavy carnivore so i have to factor the environmental impact of that industry on my greenhouse emissions. Compare that with being able to shoot an elk in my backyard.

Actually you do have reason to doubt him.

I believe him because he's retired and doesn't need to commute,like I would.

Yes, he could be driving a couple of hours a day, just to go for smokes, but the word hermit in his title leads me to believe that he probably doesn't.

 

[Segnosaur]

For "greenness". yes, I'd put my city dwelling, work from home lifestyle up against a rural dweller any day. Where it gets weird is food consumption. I'm a heavy carnivore so i have to factor the environmental impact of that industry on my greenhouse emissions. Compare that with being able to shoot an elk in my backyard.

You may eat meat, but I doubt you're a carnivore. You eat plant material too, which makes you an omnivore.

And while a rural dweller can 'shoot an elk in his back yard', they will still need to bring in supplies from the outside for the remainder of their diet. A city dweller does too, but because of economies of scale the city dweller can get those other elements of their diet with a lot less impact than a country dweller.

I believe him because he's retired and doesn't need to commute,like I would.

I doubt him because:
A: He's already lied/distorted the facts about one element of his lifestyle
B:He fails to acknowledge that while he may use "solar/wood", he is completely oblivious to other forms of energy that he uses (while at the same time railing against "city dwellers" and "nuclear power".) Such hypocrisy does not lead to a lot of trust.

If he actually made an effort to acknowledge the problems with his claims, if he actually gave usable suggestions to dealing with the problems people would respect him (even if they disagreed). At this point its hard to distinguish him from a troll.

 

[Stout]

You may eat meat, but I doubt you're a carnivore. You eat plant material too, which makes you an omnivore.

And while a rural dweller can 'shoot an elk in his back yard', they will still need to bring in supplies from the outside for the remainder of their diet. A city dweller does too, but because of economies of scale the city dweller can get those other elements of their diet with a lot less impact than a country dweller.

I doubt him because:
A: He's already lied/distorted the facts about one element of his lifestyle
B:He fails to acknowledge that while he may use "solar/wood", he is completely oblivious to other forms of energy that he uses (while at the same time railing against "city dwellers" and "nuclear power".) Such hypocrisy does not lead to a lot of trust.

If he actually made an effort to acknowledge the problems with his claims, if he actually gave usable suggestions to dealing with the problems people would respect him (even if they disagreed). At this point its hard to distinguish him from a troll.

Yep, I do eat plant material, begrudgingly. I'd live of steaks wrapped in bacon if it wouldn't kill me. A rural lifestyle also allows for a farming element. As a for example, I know this guy who lives in the boonies, raises rabbits and chickens, has an extensive vegetable garden, cans ( jars actually ) fruit and vegetables and....commute an hour and a half each way to work five days a week.

I couldn't raise much in the city.

I've never seen the railing against city dwellers before so I won't try to deny it. I get the whole anti nuclear thing, it's an opposition born out of fear and were there a viable alternative to meeting our societies power needs/demands that even came close to providing us with that quantity of reliable power, I'd get behind it instantly. As it is, IMO it's our only option if we want to reduce our fossil fuel consumption.

 

[Roma]

This is what former Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau said

Ooops, I meant former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Cretien
I like the comments after this half minute Youtube video too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbaxSNh3KB4

My point is to be very skeptical of whatever some politically inserted and government supported scientists tell you especially when there are a lot of politically suppressed scientists that are saying something different.
Maybe it's just a Canadian thing but we want a lot more proof than what Gore has to offer.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

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.)

I poke BD in his tender spots as much as anyone here, but I agree with him when he says this isn't about him. This is about the needs of 3.7 million Albertans and 25 million+ Canadians outside of Alberta.

Energy is the ultimate root resource that drives any economy. There is a direct correlation between energy produced in a country and the quality of life of its citizens. Unlike dollars, euros and yen, kilowatts are the only currency that never drop in value no matter how many of them you make.

Millions of Albertans and Canadians have the right to make a living, feed their families and have lives that they feel are worth living. BD's right to dictate and control what goes on in this province ends at the property line.

You've got some new neighbors moving in, BD. You'd best be learning how to make nice and get along.

 

[Furcifer]

What bugging me is we've got Desmond Tutu blaming the oil sands for droughts in Africa. I suppose they're pumping sunshine and ice cream sparkles out of the ground in Saudi Arabia?

When it's convenient we'll blame the producer, except when it isn't and then we'll blame the end user?

I say we do whatever China does. When they reduce their emissions to 1990 levels so will we. Promise.

 

[Belz...]

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.

You can thank our silly prime minister, "mister" Harper.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I say we do whatever China does. When they reduce their emissions to 1990 levels so will we. Promise.

I like this idea.

 

[bikerdruid]

unlike bikerdruid, they don't have to burn a lot of extra gas in order to get too and from the city.

..........

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

this criticism is 'out to lunch'!
i live a seven hour drive to the closest major city...i haven't been there in years, and then i took the bus. i don't like driving and do very little.
i live 12 miles from our town. i go there once a week.
most of my firewood is harvested within a few hundred yards of my house.
we use horses for much of that moving.
we produce and hunt the vast amount of our own food.

in the summer, i tour around the peace country a little on my old motorcycle. that's my recreation.
although i live in a remote rural location, i don't own a snowmobile, or a quad. i walk around my farm.

you obviously know little or nothing about my life.
maybe you should save your smarm for something you actually know about.

 

[Roboramma]

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

Oh, I agree to that: I'm not exactly a supporter of Kyoto, except perhaps in the sense that pulling out of it now may make future agreements that make more sense more difficult.

 

[Roboramma]

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.

This assumes facts not in evidence. Why? Why not simply point out that for most people, even if they could afford the land and infrastructure (solar panels, chiminey, etc.) to live bikerdruid's lifestyle, the necessary impact of transportation on their carbon footprint would mean this change would be a net-negative: in other words his lifestyle offers no large scale solutions to climate change problems. That doesn't mean that he hasn't positively impacted his personal carbon footprint.

When my grandparents retired they bought 100 acres of land on Manitoulin Island, built a house with thick walls, and lived there. They had no phone lines, no connection to the grid, no running water. They went into town (a fifteen minute drive) 1/week to buy food, collect ice from my uncle's freezer for their coolers, and I think get drinking water (they had a well, but I don't think it was good for drinking water), and go to church.

In the winter they sealed themselves into their kitchen and heated it with a wood burning stove. The rest of the year they enjoyed a big spacious home.

The fact that most people would need to commute from such a dwelling doesn't alter the fact that they didn't, nor somehow pump an equivalent amount of carbon into the air as though they had.

As for the net impact of their lifestyle, I don't know. I don't know where their wood came from, nor how it compares as a source of carbon dioxide to the saving they made in other ways. I don't know what the impact of the kerosine lamps they used to light their home was. I don't know what the net impact of their home's construction was, either (very simply built, round house, with walls made basically of 2 foot long firewood size logs put lengthwise in cement).

My point is only that if we did want to look at their impact, we don't look at what an average person living in their home's impact would be, we look at what their actual impact was, and the same should go for bikerdruid.

 

[Furcifer]

bikerdruids "If I can do it so can you" attitude does exemplify the problem with Kyoto. What works for Iceland and what they can do to reduce emissions just isn't possible for Canada or the US for that matter.

I honestly think the politicians went into Kyoto thinking CO2 emissions were much like car emissions and we could just tune some stuff up, make it smaller, throw a catalytic converter on it and make our emissions quota. Then they came to realize there just wasn't that much inefficiency in the energy sector to be gained like there was in the terribly inefficient ICE.

Or at least I think they're coming to realize it.

 

[Ziggurat]

When my grandparents retired they bought 100 acres of land on Manitoulin Island

Regardless of their impact on the environment, this alone tells me that, relatively speaking, your grandparents were rich. It isn't possible for most people to by 100 acre properties.

built a house with thick walls, and lived there. They had no phone lines, no connection to the grid, no running water. They went into town (a fifteen minute drive) 1/week to buy food, collect ice from my uncle's freezer for their coolers, and I think get drinking water (they had a well, but I don't think it was good for drinking water), and go to church.

Again, these are all indicators of relative wealth. Even if you gave most people a 100 acre property, most of them wouldn't be able to live in isolation like that. They'd need to get a job in order to afford food, etc.

I'm not trying to badmouth your grandparent's choice. They sound like they're doing what they want to do. But what they're doing isn't possible for most people. So regardless of the environmental impact of their choices, it's basically irrelevant to what an entire nation does or doesn't do in regards to energy usage. That's the real problem with bikerdruid's position. He's demanding people make choices that they CANNOT make. And the people who cannot make them are precisely the ones he pretends to care about the most: the poor.

 

[Antiquehunter]

Regardless of their impact on the environment, this alone tells me that, relatively speaking, your grandparents were rich. It isn't possible for most people to by 100 acre properties.

Not necessarily. I would suggest they were well off, but not 'rich'. My own grandparents owned a pretty massive chunk of land in the Eastern Townships of Quebec, which was sold off in the 1970's, except for the original farmhouse and a smaller 3 acre tract which remains in the family. The money from that sale was hardly 'rich' sort of money. It was a nice chunk, but definitely middle class and well within the '99%' definition. Especially when the remanants of that money were distributed between their three kids at the time of their death.

I wouldn't assume that 100 acres in Northern Ontario suggested ostentatious wealth.

Not meaning to be a detractor of your Grandparents, Roboramma - for all I know they were the Northern Ontario equivalent of the Bronfmans.

 

[Furcifer]

I wouldn't assume that 100 acres in Northern Ontario suggested ostentatious wealth.

I'm sure the listing was more like "100 acres on World's largest freshwater island, you own slice of private heaven on scenic Georgian Bay"

It might not have been expensive back then, but I doubt if it was cheap. Off hand I'd guess 100 acres on the island these days would be worth upwards of a million.

eta: bad guess, there's a listing for 100 acres for $159K, no dwellings. Another 100 acre hunt camp for $100K. That's about the price of a small starter home here in Ontario (in places)

 

[Antiquehunter]

I'm sure the listing was more like "100 acres on World's largest freshwater island, you own slice of private heaven on scenic Georgian Bay"

It might not have been expensive back then, but I doubt if it was cheap. Off hand I'd guess 100 acres on the island these days would be worth upwards of a million.

Fine - upwards of a million is perhaps well-off in today's terms, but hardly 'rich'. Anyways - semantics by and large.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I'm sure the listing was more like "100 acres on World's largest freshwater island, you own slice of private heaven on scenic Georgian Bay"

It might not have been expensive back then, but I doubt if it was cheap. Off hand I'd guess 100 acres on the island these days would be worth upwards of a million.

One needs to consider too how their relative wealth was generated. How did they get this money? It's all well and good to produce sufficient income to live a carbon free life today, but what was the cost along the way?

 

[Antiquehunter]

Actually, I just googled a realtor to see what is out there out of curiousity. 100 acre parcels available for under $70k.

http://manitoulinrealestate.ca/resultsDylon.cfm?SubDivision=Country Lots and Acreage

 

[Furcifer]

One needs to consider too how their relative wealth was generated. How did they get this money? It's all well and good to produce sufficient income to live a carbon free life today, but what was the cost along the way?

If meeting Kyoto emissions means taking everyone over 65 and dropping them out of a plane over northern Ontario I say "How do you pack a parachute?"

On a more serious note, the setting up of oneself for a reclusive zero carbon emissions existence on an island in the Great Lakes doesn't come without burning a lot of diesel along the way. In order to have any impact on CO2 emissions you really need to be born there and live there off the land your entire life. The problem is our society and as long as you consider yourself a part of one you're contributing to the problem.

 

[Ziggurat]

I wouldn't assume that 100 acres in Northern Ontario suggested ostentatious wealth.

Ostentatious isn't the issue. The real issue, whether or not you want to call it "rich", is that it's beyond the means of a hell of a lot of people. And it would also get more expensive (and thus beyond even more people's means) if more people tried to do it. bikerdruid's preferred course of action hurts the poor more than anyone else. But then, that's just par for the course for a communist.