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

[Segnosaur]

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.

And I lived in an apartment for years. Didn't even own a car. Heck, didn't even have a driver's license. So my carbon emissions were a lot less than yours, even with your supposedly limited transportation usage. Thank you for belching more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than I (a city dweller) was.

Oh, and the car you drive... was it made of wood too? I suspect not.

Even if you drive your car very little, it is still made of technological components that were manufactured using fossil fuels and/or nuclear power.

Not to mention the fact that you are ignoring all the other products that you use that required the use of nuclear and/or fossil fuels... the aluminum wiring in your house, the computer you are using. Heck, since you have internet service you must have some sort of satellite, cell or hardline connection to your home which required some company to use energy to either lay copper wires, or install cell towers or launch a satellite so that you could post your "We must change our lifestyle" drivel.

most of my firewood is harvested within a few hundred yards of my house.
we use horses for much of that moving.

First of all, I notice a lot of words like "most" and "much". I guess you learned your lesson against claiming absolutes from when you claimed you "live on solar". (which you don't.)

Secondly, do you collect all your firewood from your own land? After all, if you collect even one stick from crown land, you are basically supporting your lifestyle by consuming a product that is owned by all of us.

Oh, and by the way, I had already pointed out how even dead trees are necessary in an ecosystem. your harvesting of "dead wood" harms some plants/species.

we produce and hunt the vast amount of our own food.

I see...

Do you use artificial fertilizers/chemicals/pesticides? After all, much of those are produced with man-made chemicals (using things like fossil fuels in their production.) Or do you grow your food "all natural/organically"? If you do that, you're probably using more land to grow the same amount of food that you would otherwise. So, that makes you either a hypocrite or someone who has plowed over more land than they have to.

Oh, and your hunting... do you hunt with a bow and arrow that you manufactured yourself? Or do you use a firearm (which would have been produced in factories powered by nuclear power or fossil fuel.)

in the summer, i tour around the peace country a little on my old motorcycle. that's my recreation.

Really? So your 'recreation' is to drive around on a vehicle that spews even more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, with no real "destination"?

And yet you condemn city dwellers (many of whom don't even own a vehicle for things like shopping/work, much less for "touring around the country for no purpose".)

although i live in a remote rural location, i don't own a snowmobile, or a quad. i walk around my farm.

And when I first moved to Ottawa I walked everywhere. No car to drive (even if it was just once a week). No motorcycle for 'touring'.

you obviously know little or nothing about my life.

Actually I know plenty about your life.

Pretty much everything I've said has been accurate. I pretty much nailed down everything you are doing.

The only difference is, I seem to recognize the environmental impact of your actions. You dismiss your driving (and your car) by saying you "only" drive it once a week (which is more than what many people drive.) And you totally ignore your other "secondary" effects on the environment. That doesn't make you "correct", it just makes you ignorant.

 

[Furcifer]

I'm genuinely curious who has a more energy intensive lifestyle, the "Country Codger" or the "Urban Recluse".

 

[bikerdruid]

And I lived in an apartment for years. Didn't even own a car. Heck, didn't even have a driver's license. So my carbon emissions were a lot less than yours, even with your supposedly limited transportation usage. Thank you for belching more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than I (a city dweller) was.

Oh, and the car you drive... was it made of wood too? I suspect not.

Even if you drive your car very little, it is still made of technological components that were manufactured using fossil fuels and/or nuclear power.

Not to mention the fact that you are ignoring all the other products that you use that required the use of nuclear and/or fossil fuels... the aluminum wiring in your house, the computer you are using. Heck, since you have internet service you must have some sort of satellite, cell or hardline connection to your home which required some company to use energy to either lay copper wires, or install cell towers or launch a satellite so that you could post your "We must change our lifestyle" drivel.


First of all, I notice a lot of words like "most" and "much". I guess you learned your lesson against claiming absolutes from when you claimed you "live on solar". (which you don't.)

Secondly, do you collect all your firewood from your own land? After all, if you collect even one stick from crown land, you are basically supporting your lifestyle by consuming a product that is owned by all of us.

Oh, and by the way, I had already pointed out how even dead trees are necessary in an ecosystem. your harvesting of "dead wood" harms some plants/species.


I see...

Do you use artificial fertilizers/chemicals/pesticides? After all, much of those are produced with man-made chemicals (using things like fossil fuels in their production.) Or do you grow your food "all natural/organically"? If you do that, you're probably using more land to grow the same amount of food that you would otherwise. So, that makes you either a hypocrite or someone who has plowed over more land than they have to.

Oh, and your hunting... do you hunt with a bow and arrow that you manufactured yourself? Or do you use a firearm (which would have been produced in factories powered by nuclear power or fossil fuel.)


Really? So your 'recreation' is to drive around on a vehicle that spews even more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, with no real "destination"?

And yet you condemn city dwellers (many of whom don't even own a vehicle for things like shopping/work, much less for "touring around the country for no purpose".)


And when I first moved to Ottawa I walked everywhere. No car to drive (even if it was just once a week). No motorcycle for 'touring'.


Actually I know plenty about your life.

Pretty much everything I've said has been accurate. I pretty much nailed down everything you are doing.

The only difference is, I seem to recognize the environmental impact of your actions. You dismiss your driving (and your car) by saying you "only" drive it once a week (which is more than what many people drive.) And you totally ignore your other "secondary" effects on the environment. That doesn't make you "correct", it just makes you ignorant.

like i said, you know little or nothing about me and my lifestyle.
you are wrong on so many levels it is humourous.
as per my earlier suggestion, you should save your smarm for something you actually know something about.
you are not really very good at this.

 

[Belz...]

like i said, you know little or nothing about me and my lifestyle.
you are wrong on so many levels it is humourous.

We know as much as you're telling.

 

[Aepervius]

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)

Here around the price is about 15.000 euro per hectare (100 acres=40 hectares) so even in Germany 100 acres farmland would be "only" 600.000 euro. Naturally this is farmland => not build able. if you want to have a build-able property there are additional cost and taxes, and the nearer you are from a city the higher the price.

Incidentally in France the cost of farm land around my parents home was 6000Euro per hectare lately, but when they bought their own land it was like 10000 franc per hectares (1500 euro) more than 40 years ago.

It is indeed possible to buy cheap land.

The problem is, it is neigh impossible to live on cheap land , build a house, without a good source of income. EVen with a small home, count at least 250.000 euro, as invest (house+field+connection water not even counting electricity) and then you would still be left to pay tax , food and the rest.

Maybe in canada it is cheaper, but the crushing majority of the population is not able to bring up 250K€ in their lifetime. I haven't even 1/10 of that.

So the cry of "people should go for more sustainable life" is quite funny. He is maybe not rich, but BD is definitively *wealthy* in comparison to your average folk. That is undeniable.

 

[bikerdruid]

We know as much as you're telling.

and condemning me based on ignorance.

 

[Aepervius]

and condemning me based on ignorance.

Well fair is fair, you condemn our lifestyle as unsustainable, or at least less sustainable than yours, without even knowing how much carbon we consume.

I certainly for one consume *less* gas per week than you do : my SOLE transportation is a bike. No car.

 

[bikerdruid]

Well fair is fair, you condemn our lifestyle as unsustainable, or at least less sustainable than yours, without even knowing how much carbon we consume.

I certainly for one consume *less* gas per week than you do : my SOLE transportation is a bike. No car.

i have been accused of 'condemning' people in this thread.
i have not.

i have suggested that everyone can make choices.
i have not condemned anyone.
feel free to prove me wrong.

 

[Segnosaur]

like i said, you know little or nothing about me and my lifestyle.

A there we go, another post with absolutely no useful content.

Lets take a look at what we do know, M'kay?

- In order to 'top up' your solar batteries you use gas generators on occasion. Result: You pump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (more so than a city dweller that gets their power strictly from nuclear)
- You own a car. Even though you "only drive it once a week", it still consumes gas. Result: Even more carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere. (More so than a city dweller that doesn't even own a car and walks.) Furthermore, the fact that you even own a car means that you are using products that were manufactured using fossil fuels and/or nuclear power.
- Your 'recreation' involves using an internal combustion engine to spew even more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
- You disturb nature by collecting 'deadwood', ignoring the fact that such wood is a part of the natural cycle.

Now, I did make a few assumptions... you actually have a computer (and aren't communicating with the internet via telepathy). Your house uses some form of wiring (probably aluminum) to transmit electricity from your batteries to the appliances. You have other products manufactured through modern methods (e.g. fridge) And you have either a wood stove, or some similar method for wood burning which would require metal to manufacture.

So, tell me, what have I gotten wrong? Is your car made of wood? Have you found a way to transmit electricity without wires? Is your motorcycle solar powered too? Do you have a bonfire burning in the middle of the floor rather than a fireplace?

you are not really very good at this.

Actually I am pretty good, considering your only response seems to be to chant "You don't know my life!" rather than, you know, deal with the fact that your activities are causing more environmental problems than you are admitting to. You're either incredibly ignorant or a hypocrite.

 

[Belz...]

and condemning me based on ignorance.

That would imply that you are purposely misleading people with the information you give.

 

[stilicho]

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.)

What will actually happen, of course, is that Canada will continue to bumble along with the pack, sign the most ridiculous agreements, and then renege on them once they become too expensive to implement. If Canada were the only entity that did this kind of thing then I'd be ashamed but honestly all countries and corporations do it.

The way things look right now, the economics of the energy sector is largely going to dictate real global energy "protocols" anyhow. It's simply a matter of various entities (including--*gasp*--scientists) taking credit for how the changes are implemented.

If the talk here at JREF is any indication, it's unlikely that anybody on the planet is going to surrender their standard of living (even if it means theft of public property for personal consumption as bikerdruid champions) for the sake of an enforceable "protocol". That means that economics will dictate the solution and that's almost certain to include nuclear energy.

Our task is to accept and accommodate change and not to indulge in useless fantasies about living in forests and collecting fallen branches. I am pretty certain I'm not the only one who thinks bikerdruid is possibly imagining things or playing this "forest elf" character in World of Warcraft rather than in real life.

 

[Peephole]

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.

So yeah, people linking to Free Republic and denying global warming aren't really best suited to call other people ignorant.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

you obviously know little or nothing about my life.

I don't care about your life. You can do whatever you want on your farm. it makes little difference to me.

maybe you should save your smarm for something you actually know about.

It just so happens that I do know about baseload power generation. Putting Kyoto aside for the moment, you want Canada to reduce it's carbon emissions. The only way to do this is to go nuclear.

Denmark has spent billions establishing offshore wind power generation, yet they have not retired a single fossil fueled power plant. Denmark today emits 650 grams of CO₂ per kilowatt hour.

France went nuclear in a big way. The French power grid today is more than 80% nuclear. France emits 90g of CO₂/kWh.

If you want to see Canada cut its emissions, you need to support the proposed Peace River Nuclear Generating facility.

 

[bikerdruid]

I don't care about your life. You can do whatever you want on your farm. it makes little difference to me.

this post was not directed at you.
strangely enough, you are not attacking me here. segnosaur is, baselessly, i might add.
and belz is just mouthing off about nothing.

 

[bikerdruid]

A there we go, another post with absolutely no useful content.

Lets take a look at what we do know, M'kay?

- In order to 'top up' your solar batteries you use gas generators on occasion. Result: You pump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (more so than a city dweller that gets their power strictly from nuclear)
- You own a car. Even though you "only drive it once a week", it still consumes gas. Result: Even more carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere. (More so than a city dweller that doesn't even own a car and walks.) Furthermore, the fact that you even own a car means that you are using products that were manufactured using fossil fuels and/or nuclear power.
- Your 'recreation' involves using an internal combustion engine to spew even more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
- You disturb nature by collecting 'deadwood', ignoring the fact that such wood is a part of the natural cycle.

Now, I did make a few assumptions... you actually have a computer (and aren't communicating with the internet via telepathy). Your house uses some form of wiring (probably aluminum) to transmit electricity from your batteries to the appliances. You have other products manufactured through modern methods (e.g. fridge) And you have either a wood stove, or some similar method for wood burning which would require metal to manufacture.

So, tell me, what have I gotten wrong? Is your car made of wood? Have you found a way to transmit electricity without wires? Is your motorcycle solar powered too? Do you have a bonfire burning in the middle of the floor rather than a fireplace?

Actually I am pretty good, considering your only response seems to be to chant "You don't know my life!" rather than, you know, deal with the fact that your activities are causing more environmental problems than you are admitting to. You're either incredibly ignorant or a hypocrite.

for somebody that obviously has nothing worthwhile to say, you sure say a lot of it.
welcome to ignore.

 

[Roboramma]

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.

See below: I'm not arguing your point, but I wouldn't say they were rich. As I understand it my grandfather worked in a factory his whole life, and used that income to support five children and his wife. I don't think my grandmother worked at all. On the other hand, I failed to mention (mainly because I usually forget) that my uncle chipped in and that land was half his (he also built a smaller log house there from which he tried to raise his family, but after several years raising children without running water his wife had had enough).

But, anyway, I agree with you, that sort of lifestyle isn't possible for the vast majority of people. If they were able to do it without too much money it's likely because land prices in the bush on manitoulin island were relatively low. If everyone started buying big plots of land, that situation would be impossible.

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.

Of course, as I said, this was a retirement thing. I was basically saying, "this is an atypical example of a lifestyle some people were able to live, but which isn't possible for most. However, if you want to judge their lifestyle, you have to judge it." My point was that I think bikerdruid is wrong if he is suggesting he's found a solution that could work on a large scale, but I think it's also wrong to suggest that he's having a negative impact.

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.

Agreed. I actually agree with everyone who says bikerdruid's solution is no solution at all when applied on a large scale. I think the only real solution is, as others say, nuclear power.
I just think that for an individual who wants to reduce their own personal impact and has the means to do so, it's not a bad personal choice.

But, of course, to go beyond that and suggest that society as a whole is somehow worse than you because that personal choice hasn't been implemented on a larger scale is, certainly, blind to reality.

 

[bikerdruid]

to all and sundry:
i have NEVER assumed or claimed that i have a ZERO CARBON FOOTPRINT.
i have said that i have made conscious choices to reduce it.

strangely, some have made this thread about me.
check the thread title.
it ain't.

 

[Roboramma]

i have NEVER assumed or claimed that i have a ZERO CARBON FOOTPRINT.
i have said that i have made conscious choices to reduce it.

I think you've also suggested that others should also make conscious choices to reduce their own carbon footprints. I agree. Of course, what make viable choices for others are likely different than what makes for viable choices for you, and I suspect you agree to that. For instance, Steganosaur has pointed out that walking is a viable mode for many living in inner cities, in that case if someone already living in the inner city wanted to give up his car, that's a reasonable way (at least for some) to limit their carbon footprint. For someone living in the suburbs who commutes long distances to work, that may not be viable, but other choices (like installing efficient lighting, or improving home insulation) may be, and may have a greater impact.

Do you agree that the ways in which each individual can reduce their carbon footprint differ based on circumstances? (I ask mainly because other posters seem to have assumed that you do not agree to that).

Finally, do you think that the sum total of such reasonably possible choices is enough that there is no need to alter our energy generation infrastructure? Do you think that if we make these sorts of improvements in efficiency we can reduce our national carbon footprint to the point that nuclear, for instance, is no longer necessary?
Because while I am all for such improvements in efficiency, I don't.

 

[applecorped]

to all and sundry:
i have NEVER assumed or claimed that i have a ZERO CARBON FOOTPRINT.
i have said that i have made conscious choices to reduce it.

strangely, some have made this thread about me.
check the thread title.
it ain't.

Maybe people think it says "Canada may exit Yoko pact.." and got confused.

 

[bikerdruid]

Maybe people think it says "Canada may exit Yoko pact.." and got confused.