Tuesday, August 4, 2015
the major political parties in canada seem to have not received the memo on this.
our dynastic, centrist party (that is facing possible destruction) is actually campaigning on it. ugh. somebody get me a fucking salmon...
http://climateactionnetwork.ca/2015/04/07/61-of-canadians-say-protecting-the-climate-more-important-than-pipelines-and-tarsands/
then, he'll blame the inability to connect with voters on the conservative ads.
no.
dammit.
your policies are terrible. fuck. do you not do internal polling?
our dynastic, centrist party (that is facing possible destruction) is actually campaigning on it. ugh. somebody get me a fucking salmon...
http://climateactionnetwork.ca/2015/04/07/61-of-canadians-say-protecting-the-climate-more-important-than-pipelines-and-tarsands/
then, he'll blame the inability to connect with voters on the conservative ads.
no.
dammit.
your policies are terrible. fuck. do you not do internal polling?
at
07:25
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
ugh. i'm voting green.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-tom-mulcair-says-stephen-harper-is-weak-and-vulnerable-on-tpp-talks-1.3178689
WelfareState
ok, why?
Jessica Murray
the modern ndp is not supposed to endorse these kinds of investor-rights agreements. mulcair is basically ignoring his party's platform and sticking a knife into the back of the people that built the party that he walked into. enthusiastic support for the tpp is exactly what i don't want to hear. supply management is important, but the real problem is the restrictions on democracy that these deals put in place. the green party is apparently currently the only party that is in opposition to the tpp.
it seems like what we're going to get with an ndp government is a liberal government, but without the liberal party's more enlightened perspective on constitutional processes. if he's just going to be a liberal on economics, anyways, then the ndp walking into this void and gutting all the good parts of the liberals for goofy ndp ideas like abolishing the senate is a definite step backwards.
what i wanted was the liberal approach to governing with an ndp approach to economics. to me, that's true liberalism. but, it seems like what we're going to get is the ndp approach to government with liberal economics. and, that's a poison pill i'm "enthusiastically" skeptical of.
the green party is a protest vote. right now, that seems like the right choice in this election - with the liberals calling for pipelines and the ndp in support of free trade.
i'd like to see a caucus vote on this...
i think the proper, correct view on this is that it needs to be put to a referendum. i'm going to oppose it. but it's the kind of thing we really need a direct vote on.
------
ok. how about this...
this is politics. he's taking a position that all of the major parties have and trying to conflate it into an issue that doesn't really exist.
what i'm more concerned about is the question of extra-legal kangaroo courts that can overrule democratically enacted laws. trade should be carried out by countries with comparable labour standards, and i don't doubt that mulcair agrees on this. but, those kangaroo courts are a hard stop. that is what the biggest problem is: investors in japan stopping the government of ontario from carrying out a plan that would help the environment and boost the economy. that's what we can't have more of.
supply management is easy politics. it's a consensus issue. he's picking a superfluous fight. i can see through that.
what i want to know is where the ndp really stands on how these agreements subvert local democratic institutions.
---
i'm fighting with my computer, and had a little more time to think about this. it's ultimately creating more confusion than it's resolving.
i understand why he might think that taking a middle position on trade would help him in the center. he's probably thinking that if he comes out with a critical position then harper will nail him as a communist and scare away traditional liberal voters. i think he's misreading the electorate; people aren't actually that stupid, even if the right thinks they are, and i think opposition to these agreements is actually rather profound. i think this section of the electorate is probably better defined as "ndp leaning liberal voters" in the sense that they'd have voted ndp if they were voting with their heart instead of their brain. meaning this is the position they've always wanted to take, but didn't out of political pragmatism and hope that the liberals were not lying when they opposed nafta. but it's kind of conventional thinking that you have to hug the center on this. so, he's taking this characteristically liberal non-stance in supporting the agreement but being critical about supply management - which even the conservatives are clearly in support of. free trade if necessary, but not necessarily free trade.
on the one hand, the supply management issue may be the extent he actually knows of the agreement, so he might just be placing his criticism in actual fact. but what it comes off as is a decision to pick an issue that the entire spectrum agrees on, to make it seem like he's opposing something he's not opposing, and then use that to generate support fighting something that he's going to win anyways (due to consensus). it kind of reeks of classic, shady political posteuring. it's poltical theatre. and, the thing is that this is exactly what he's doing with the east-west pipeline, so there's a precedent for that reading of it.
i think that the limited evidence that we have does suggest that he's somewhere in the middle. he's probably not going to be categorically against nafta-like agreements as the ndp has been for many years. but he'll probably be a little more selective than either the conservatives or liberals. it's just a question of determining what the criteria actually is, and determining whether it's stringent enough. the alter-globalization movement was never opposed to global trade, it just rejected the idea that the rules be written by investors and multinationals - which is exactly what the tpp is, and exactly who the tpp will benefit.
the ndp policy on the issue is clearly not of much help in figuring this out, as he's essentially ignored his party's official position. that's obviously going to be an issue if he wins - that policy came from somewhere, and at least a part of his caucus is going to want to make sure they're doing what they're elected to do. some pressure to not abandon the platform is going to be apparent, and he can only waver so far before the caucus bolts.
but it's just not clear to me if he's muting his perspective for perceived electoral reasons (and he's actually going to push back a little harder against chapter-11 style legislation than he's letting on) or if he's trying to hide his larger support of free trade in order to stop his base from bleeding to the greens. and, that's an important thing to figure out if this is an issue that's important to you and you're thinking about voting for him.
the reality is that these kinds of shady politics were once normal in canada, and the liberals were the worst of the bunch. it's just a little disorienting to get it from the ndp. a big turn-off.
i don't think it's unreasonable for a voter to ask that a candidate behave consistently with it's party's official positions and that, if the candidate is going to move drastically away from it, that they produce a clear policy paper that explains it.
he might be thinking it will help him if he's vague.
but i think it might actually hurt him from both perspectives if he allows imagination to take hold, rather than being crystal clear.
bgGruff
sorry, the public record says otherwise-
Canadians seem easily influenced by Harper's propaganda
2 examples
1. the evil 2011 coalition
2. the per vote subsidy- scuttled by Harper, even though it
is the most 'democratic' funding vehicle- and almost uncorruptable - the 'individual political donations are a easy way for corporations to launder donations through employees or board members
Jessica Murray
i'm not really a fan of public political financing, and i don't really think that much of anything that harper has said has been very influential on much of anybody in canada. i think the opposition to the coalition was more centered around a concept of fair play - and a genuine sense of trepidation around stephane dion making decisions. it was legitimately not something people really wanted. harper didn't have to point that out.
in a healthy democracy, the volume in which a lie is stated doesn't make it more truthful. when harper has lied, people have called him on it. but, when he's pointed out some uncomfortable realities, people have also reacted - less by supporting him and more by grudgingly disengaging.
harper has not been politically successful, nor has he built any meaningful base of support. however, his opponents have been startlingly incompetent. they should take responsibility for this and stop blaming their losses on the tactical genius of a man that is, in fact, quite obviously an imbecile.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-tom-mulcair-says-stephen-harper-is-weak-and-vulnerable-on-tpp-talks-1.3178689
WelfareState
ok, why?
Jessica Murray
the modern ndp is not supposed to endorse these kinds of investor-rights agreements. mulcair is basically ignoring his party's platform and sticking a knife into the back of the people that built the party that he walked into. enthusiastic support for the tpp is exactly what i don't want to hear. supply management is important, but the real problem is the restrictions on democracy that these deals put in place. the green party is apparently currently the only party that is in opposition to the tpp.
it seems like what we're going to get with an ndp government is a liberal government, but without the liberal party's more enlightened perspective on constitutional processes. if he's just going to be a liberal on economics, anyways, then the ndp walking into this void and gutting all the good parts of the liberals for goofy ndp ideas like abolishing the senate is a definite step backwards.
what i wanted was the liberal approach to governing with an ndp approach to economics. to me, that's true liberalism. but, it seems like what we're going to get is the ndp approach to government with liberal economics. and, that's a poison pill i'm "enthusiastically" skeptical of.
the green party is a protest vote. right now, that seems like the right choice in this election - with the liberals calling for pipelines and the ndp in support of free trade.
i'd like to see a caucus vote on this...
i think the proper, correct view on this is that it needs to be put to a referendum. i'm going to oppose it. but it's the kind of thing we really need a direct vote on.
------
ok. how about this...
this is politics. he's taking a position that all of the major parties have and trying to conflate it into an issue that doesn't really exist.
what i'm more concerned about is the question of extra-legal kangaroo courts that can overrule democratically enacted laws. trade should be carried out by countries with comparable labour standards, and i don't doubt that mulcair agrees on this. but, those kangaroo courts are a hard stop. that is what the biggest problem is: investors in japan stopping the government of ontario from carrying out a plan that would help the environment and boost the economy. that's what we can't have more of.
supply management is easy politics. it's a consensus issue. he's picking a superfluous fight. i can see through that.
what i want to know is where the ndp really stands on how these agreements subvert local democratic institutions.
---
i'm fighting with my computer, and had a little more time to think about this. it's ultimately creating more confusion than it's resolving.
i understand why he might think that taking a middle position on trade would help him in the center. he's probably thinking that if he comes out with a critical position then harper will nail him as a communist and scare away traditional liberal voters. i think he's misreading the electorate; people aren't actually that stupid, even if the right thinks they are, and i think opposition to these agreements is actually rather profound. i think this section of the electorate is probably better defined as "ndp leaning liberal voters" in the sense that they'd have voted ndp if they were voting with their heart instead of their brain. meaning this is the position they've always wanted to take, but didn't out of political pragmatism and hope that the liberals were not lying when they opposed nafta. but it's kind of conventional thinking that you have to hug the center on this. so, he's taking this characteristically liberal non-stance in supporting the agreement but being critical about supply management - which even the conservatives are clearly in support of. free trade if necessary, but not necessarily free trade.
on the one hand, the supply management issue may be the extent he actually knows of the agreement, so he might just be placing his criticism in actual fact. but what it comes off as is a decision to pick an issue that the entire spectrum agrees on, to make it seem like he's opposing something he's not opposing, and then use that to generate support fighting something that he's going to win anyways (due to consensus). it kind of reeks of classic, shady political posteuring. it's poltical theatre. and, the thing is that this is exactly what he's doing with the east-west pipeline, so there's a precedent for that reading of it.
i think that the limited evidence that we have does suggest that he's somewhere in the middle. he's probably not going to be categorically against nafta-like agreements as the ndp has been for many years. but he'll probably be a little more selective than either the conservatives or liberals. it's just a question of determining what the criteria actually is, and determining whether it's stringent enough. the alter-globalization movement was never opposed to global trade, it just rejected the idea that the rules be written by investors and multinationals - which is exactly what the tpp is, and exactly who the tpp will benefit.
the ndp policy on the issue is clearly not of much help in figuring this out, as he's essentially ignored his party's official position. that's obviously going to be an issue if he wins - that policy came from somewhere, and at least a part of his caucus is going to want to make sure they're doing what they're elected to do. some pressure to not abandon the platform is going to be apparent, and he can only waver so far before the caucus bolts.
but it's just not clear to me if he's muting his perspective for perceived electoral reasons (and he's actually going to push back a little harder against chapter-11 style legislation than he's letting on) or if he's trying to hide his larger support of free trade in order to stop his base from bleeding to the greens. and, that's an important thing to figure out if this is an issue that's important to you and you're thinking about voting for him.
the reality is that these kinds of shady politics were once normal in canada, and the liberals were the worst of the bunch. it's just a little disorienting to get it from the ndp. a big turn-off.
i don't think it's unreasonable for a voter to ask that a candidate behave consistently with it's party's official positions and that, if the candidate is going to move drastically away from it, that they produce a clear policy paper that explains it.
he might be thinking it will help him if he's vague.
but i think it might actually hurt him from both perspectives if he allows imagination to take hold, rather than being crystal clear.
bgGruff
sorry, the public record says otherwise-
Canadians seem easily influenced by Harper's propaganda
2 examples
1. the evil 2011 coalition
2. the per vote subsidy- scuttled by Harper, even though it
is the most 'democratic' funding vehicle- and almost uncorruptable - the 'individual political donations are a easy way for corporations to launder donations through employees or board members
Jessica Murray
i'm not really a fan of public political financing, and i don't really think that much of anything that harper has said has been very influential on much of anybody in canada. i think the opposition to the coalition was more centered around a concept of fair play - and a genuine sense of trepidation around stephane dion making decisions. it was legitimately not something people really wanted. harper didn't have to point that out.
in a healthy democracy, the volume in which a lie is stated doesn't make it more truthful. when harper has lied, people have called him on it. but, when he's pointed out some uncomfortable realities, people have also reacted - less by supporting him and more by grudgingly disengaging.
harper has not been politically successful, nor has he built any meaningful base of support. however, his opponents have been startlingly incompetent. they should take responsibility for this and stop blaming their losses on the tactical genius of a man that is, in fact, quite obviously an imbecile.
at
05:47
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
the ndp is arguing for a mixed member proportional system, and while the liberals have been a little confusing (as they tend to be), their most recent attempt was the single transferable.
mmp has been repeatedly rejected by plebiscite. it's not a popular option. personally, i'd be happy to see them move to the stv, but the perception is that it will cement the liberals in place. correct or not, it's a problem in it's adoption.
www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/03/canada-election-parliament-stephen-harper
mmp has been repeatedly rejected by plebiscite. it's not a popular option. personally, i'd be happy to see them move to the stv, but the perception is that it will cement the liberals in place. correct or not, it's a problem in it's adoption.
www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/03/canada-election-parliament-stephen-harper
at
05:03
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
vote trudeau for more pipelines.
yeah. great. just what i wanted. more pipelines.
they're screwed.
and they don't seem to get it.
whatever. i'm going back to mixing my songs, now.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-justin-trudeau-takes-his-campaign-to-stephen-harper-s-backyard-1.3177921
the memo that trudeau clearly missed:
http://climateactionnetwork.ca/2015/04/07/61-of-canadians-say-protecting-the-climate-more-important-than-pipelines-and-tarsands/
82% of Liberals, 62% of New Democrats, 97% of Greens, 39% of Conservatives, 88% of the Bloc Québecois, and 53% of Undecided voters agree or strongly agree that protecting the climate is more important than building the Energy East pipeline and further developing the tarsands.
61% of Liberals, 73% of New Democrats, 90% of Greens, 43% of Conservatives, 73% of the Bloc Québecois, and 56% of Undecided voters feel it is important or very important to phase out coal, oil and gas and replace it with renewable energy.
so, what's he doing, here? running for leader of the conservative party?
peace1212
Do you work for the Arabian Oil Cartel?
Why did my Icelandic and Nordic ancestors live in Greenland for hundreds of years prior to the well known Global Cooling event of 1011 AD?
With respect, please consider what I'm saying.
Jessica Murray
i'm going to give you the chance to back out of this before i make a fool out of you, because it's really not what i wanted to spend my time doing this morning.
Spire
climate change is a big deal, but not the only deal. Trudeau does have some intriguing components of his platform - like creating a new income tax bracket for the wealthy.
Climate change is on everyone's mind, but is on the top of the list for only a few.
peace1212
You can't answer my question then? I stated it with clear respect. I'm an orange leaning Albertan btw. So, what about Greenland being populated before?
Jessica Murray
the warming/cooling trend that you're speaking of in the northern hemisphere is defined largely by the north atlantic oscillation, which is a primarily solar effect determined by the tilt of the earth's axis. this is a process that is independent of carbon induced global warming.
82% of liberals saying stopping climate change is more important than building pipelines indicates that the opposite is true - that it's a far more important issue to voters than generating revenue streams for the government of china is.
longtime_in
WOW I am impressed. What impact does livestock have on CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and in the ocean?
peace1212
The earth was hit with a cataclysm in 1011 AD. Nothing grew in the northern hemisphere for 3 full years. The people fled back to Iceland from vinland and Greenland. Vinland is what we call Newfoundland now.
This same type of event happened to a smaller scale in the 1850s as well. Massive numbers of people died of starvation in the new world colonies, 1/3 of Icelanders also died. This time, due to a volcanic eruption in Iceland. 1011 may have been an asteroid.
My point is that it's so easy to blame global warming on what we are told to blame it on. Increases in solar flaring from the sun also increase global warming.
We have a responsibility to live as caretakers and stewards of the earth. Frankly I wish I could by a vehicle that had modern technology to replace old combustion technologies which are non renewable. That is the best area to focus upon for those of us whom consider ourselves stewards of the environment. Attacking the oil sands does nothing to alleviate the combustion of oil from known terrorist nations such as Saudi Arabia.
I say these things with respect and with hopes for actual change such as improved technologies which are clean.
Jessica Murray
it's measurable, but it's not the dominant cause. it's something like 10% of the emissions. there's a lot of reasons why agriculture is not sustainable, either, and my ideal platform would have a number of strategies to address sustainability and food sovereignty. but, this isn't the direct issue at hand.
the tar sands are uniquely disastrous. it's difficult to consider them in aggregate like this.
we're not told to "blame" anything on anything. we have a demonstrable correlation of rising global temperatures with rising carbon levels. we have an easily demonstrable mechanism that tells us why this is true. that's not a process of belief, or "blame". that's a goddamned fucking fact.
it's thought that a small amount of the warming before 1980 was due to solar effects, but solar insolation has decreased since that point. the possibility of the warming that we're experiencing being due to solar effects is 0%. that's not an exaggeration. that's a goddamned fucking fact.
this is not a debate. and i'm not willing to pretend that it is. i'm not sure which party you're working for, but it's really simple: you get your heads out of your asses, or you deal with litigation that makes the project unprofitable. you can't win this fight. give up.
you're fighting massive levels of public opposition, you're fighting legal realities that you're in a weak position on, you're fighting all concepts of morality and social justice and you're ultimately fighting against history.
you will lose.
deal with it.
this is not a nation building project - unless you're trying to build support against it.
this is not an economic windfall. the money's being shipped out of the country, and the product is being shipped out of the country. it's not creating jobs. it's not creating wealth.
it's a disaster on every level, in every way. and this is indeed very bad leadership.
peace1212
I guess there is no way that the Global Warming is caused by Solar Flaring/radiant heat increases from the sun? Is it possible in your opinion?
Don't asteroids and massive volcanoes effect global warming and global cooling cycles?
Why did my ancestors live in Greenland and Vinland prior to 1011?
Why are we not fueling our vehicles with cutting edge clean technologies?
Jessica Murray
no. it is not an opinion that global warming is not caused by solar effects. this is an entirely debunked, completely unscientific claim. in fact, this is one of the arguments that the ipcc uses. solar effects have been *decreasing* since 1980, while warming has been *increasing*. if the climate was being driven solely by the sun, we'd be experiencing global cooling. the fact that we're not indicates that the warming is not caused by the sun.
volcanoes and asteroids mostly have cooling effects. they can be understood, just like carbon emissions. generally, the way they're worked into the models is as a mitigating effect.
presuming that you are speaking of norse settlers, they were not your ancestors and your ancestors consequently did not live in this region. they were all killed. the reason norse settlers set out to this region is complex - but this has nothing to do with the issue, to the point where it's not even wrong enough to be deconstructed.
longtime_in
I imagine you would be surprised to learn GHG emissions attributable to livestock where estimated at 18% of annual emission in 2006 by the UNFAO. Recent analysis found that livestock and their by-products account for 32.6 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalents or 51% of worldwide GHG emissions.
Livestock also requires huge tracks of land and a significant amount of water. Both of these items are in short supply to sustain human life. I recently learned that researcher have developed a process to mimic the taste and nutritional value of beef by extracting protein from plant matter. The residue from the process could be used as a feedstock for energy from biomass.
You might appreciate how exciting this prospect might be. So I am sorry I don't get excited about your views on oil sands and pipelines. We have to open our horizons to both economic and environmental challenges we face.
peace1212
My ancestors most certainly travelled from Iceland to Greenland and Vinland. There is even archeological evidence that they settled in Baffin Island or taught their house building techniques to those who lived in a warmed up arctic around 500 AD.
I have heard that the global warming data is skewed, if you believe in ur heart that u are doing the right thing fighting against it then good for you. Respect
Jessica Murray
@longtime_in
i don't think your numbers are accurate, but the idea that we need to find sustainable agricultural solutions in addition to reducing oil emissions is not new to the issue. you state this like it's some kind of surprise.
as mentioned, i would also support taking measures to reduce agricultural emissions. i agree that the ultimate solution to livestock is some kind of synthetic meat and i would support policies that help bring synthetic meats to market. but the fact that around 10% of the emissions are from agriculture doesn't some negate the reality that the vast majority of them are from industry and transportation, or somehow make the tar sands ok.
these tactics are like...i don't know who you're trying to appeal to. seven year olds? who thinks in such facile terms? who sets up every issue in these illogical binary terms, and then tricks themselves into nonsensical conclusions via restriction of reasonable analysis? i could see my dog implementing that kind of logic. she doesn't have much of an attention span. but the idea that you're going to get any human to look at this data:
transportation + industry: 50%
agriculture: 10%
(that's sourced roughly from the epa, which i know is not global)
and conclude that oil doesn't matter because of agriculture is...just...???
Jessica Murray
@peace1212
that archaeological evidence suggests that the settlers in newfoundland were killed by the natives and the settlers in greenland died of starvation.
the earth goes through broad climate shifts. historically, some of it has been carbon related: huge volcanic eruptions like you say. some of it's been related to subtle shifts in the earth's orbit. some of it has been caused by life itself changing the components of the atmosphere. we may have caused some flooding back at the dawn of the neolithic, and it might even be the source of the flood stories in the bible. this is all fine and true.
but what we're dealing with right now at this very moment is caused by our carbon emissions - and this can be proven with a high degree of certainty. the sun part is....it's absolutely, totally wrong. and the other factors (like milankovitch cycles) tend to work in the opposite direction.
longtime_in
Maybe you might get a little less arrogant. I was not referring to agriculture,That is understood. Read 2006 UNFAO paper on livestock not UNIPCC on agriculture.
You talk tactics. You come across as a closed minded eco-terrorist. Where are the sources for your absolutes. I am done with you, clearly you too smart to have a civil exchange other than with yourself. Clatter on.
Jessica Murray
livestock is a subset of agriculture. emissions labelled agriculture should be greater than emissions labelled livestock across the board. further, sometimes when we say agriculture we also refer to land-use, and then the numbers get a little bigger. in some sense, it's intertwined. but, there's a difference between saying "we need to raise our cattle differently" and saying "we need to stop cutting down forests for grazing".
it's not that this isn't important. but this debate over the numbers is meaningless; the best you can do is convince me that more effort needs to be put into regulating farmers. but, for the record...
i couldn't find the number you're citing, but i found the following, and what it indicates is that it is taking a broad concept of "livestock" that also includes land-use issues. a number closer to 20% is believable. that 51% is more difficult to make sense of.
from the document you're citing:
"human populations, economic growth, technology and primary energy requirements are the main driving forces of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions (IPCC– special report on emission scenarios). The net additions of carbon to the atmosphere are estimated at between 4.5 and 6.5 billion tonnes per year. Mostly, the burning of fossil fuel and land-use changes, which destroy organic carbon in the soil, are responsible.
The respiration of livestock makes up only a very small part of the net release of carbon that can be attributed to the livestock sector. Much more is released indirectly by other channels including:
• burning fossil fuel to produce mineral fertilizers used in feed production;
• methane release from the breakdown of fertilizers and from animal manure;
• land-use changes for feed production and for grazing;
• land degradation;
• fossil fuel use during feed and animal production; and
• fossil fuel use in production and transport of processed and refrigerated animal products"
"Carbon dioxide
Livestock account for 9 percent of global anthropogenic emissions
When deforestation for pasture and feedcrop land, and pasture degradation are taken into account, livestock-related emissions of carbon dioxide are an important component of the global total (some 9 percent). "
they emit a larger share of methane, but the amount of methane is much less, despite being much stronger.
i don't see anything in the report that contradicts the idea that it's around 10%. 12%, maybe. whatever. not the dominant problem...
the other thing you have to keep in mind about this is that the carbon cycle for agriculture is a little different than the carbon cycle for fossil fuels. i want to be careful with how i present this because i don't want to make the argument that agriculture is carbon neutral, but the take-away is that it's not really a good comparison and you can't put the policies on the same footing.
ultimately, all the carbon that goes into and comes out of the farming on the level of the actual farming is atmospheric. in that sense, the cow and the corn are really just recycling carbon. i mean, you certainly cannot generate carbon this way. those cow farts are returning whence they came. the conclusion is that agriculture itself doesn't contribute to a net increase in carbon. with a caveat.
where it gets problematic is when you start looking at the imbalance in the inputs and outputs. while the farming itself is not creating carbon, there are things like the land-use issues i previously mentioned, transportation costs, oil-based pesticides and all these other inputs. but the ultimate problem is the scale. because farming is atmospheric carbon, if we planted enough trees then we wouldn't actually be increasing emissions.
that's different than releasing stores of carbon from underground. agriculture really pushes an imbalance, rather than a net increase and this is really relatively easily dealt with by planting trees. fossil fuels are actually introducing carbon into the environment.
yeah. great. just what i wanted. more pipelines.
they're screwed.
and they don't seem to get it.
whatever. i'm going back to mixing my songs, now.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-justin-trudeau-takes-his-campaign-to-stephen-harper-s-backyard-1.3177921
the memo that trudeau clearly missed:
http://climateactionnetwork.ca/2015/04/07/61-of-canadians-say-protecting-the-climate-more-important-than-pipelines-and-tarsands/
82% of Liberals, 62% of New Democrats, 97% of Greens, 39% of Conservatives, 88% of the Bloc Québecois, and 53% of Undecided voters agree or strongly agree that protecting the climate is more important than building the Energy East pipeline and further developing the tarsands.
61% of Liberals, 73% of New Democrats, 90% of Greens, 43% of Conservatives, 73% of the Bloc Québecois, and 56% of Undecided voters feel it is important or very important to phase out coal, oil and gas and replace it with renewable energy.
so, what's he doing, here? running for leader of the conservative party?
peace1212
Do you work for the Arabian Oil Cartel?
Why did my Icelandic and Nordic ancestors live in Greenland for hundreds of years prior to the well known Global Cooling event of 1011 AD?
With respect, please consider what I'm saying.
Jessica Murray
i'm going to give you the chance to back out of this before i make a fool out of you, because it's really not what i wanted to spend my time doing this morning.
Spire
climate change is a big deal, but not the only deal. Trudeau does have some intriguing components of his platform - like creating a new income tax bracket for the wealthy.
Climate change is on everyone's mind, but is on the top of the list for only a few.
peace1212
You can't answer my question then? I stated it with clear respect. I'm an orange leaning Albertan btw. So, what about Greenland being populated before?
Jessica Murray
the warming/cooling trend that you're speaking of in the northern hemisphere is defined largely by the north atlantic oscillation, which is a primarily solar effect determined by the tilt of the earth's axis. this is a process that is independent of carbon induced global warming.
82% of liberals saying stopping climate change is more important than building pipelines indicates that the opposite is true - that it's a far more important issue to voters than generating revenue streams for the government of china is.
longtime_in
WOW I am impressed. What impact does livestock have on CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and in the ocean?
peace1212
The earth was hit with a cataclysm in 1011 AD. Nothing grew in the northern hemisphere for 3 full years. The people fled back to Iceland from vinland and Greenland. Vinland is what we call Newfoundland now.
This same type of event happened to a smaller scale in the 1850s as well. Massive numbers of people died of starvation in the new world colonies, 1/3 of Icelanders also died. This time, due to a volcanic eruption in Iceland. 1011 may have been an asteroid.
My point is that it's so easy to blame global warming on what we are told to blame it on. Increases in solar flaring from the sun also increase global warming.
We have a responsibility to live as caretakers and stewards of the earth. Frankly I wish I could by a vehicle that had modern technology to replace old combustion technologies which are non renewable. That is the best area to focus upon for those of us whom consider ourselves stewards of the environment. Attacking the oil sands does nothing to alleviate the combustion of oil from known terrorist nations such as Saudi Arabia.
I say these things with respect and with hopes for actual change such as improved technologies which are clean.
Jessica Murray
it's measurable, but it's not the dominant cause. it's something like 10% of the emissions. there's a lot of reasons why agriculture is not sustainable, either, and my ideal platform would have a number of strategies to address sustainability and food sovereignty. but, this isn't the direct issue at hand.
the tar sands are uniquely disastrous. it's difficult to consider them in aggregate like this.
we're not told to "blame" anything on anything. we have a demonstrable correlation of rising global temperatures with rising carbon levels. we have an easily demonstrable mechanism that tells us why this is true. that's not a process of belief, or "blame". that's a goddamned fucking fact.
it's thought that a small amount of the warming before 1980 was due to solar effects, but solar insolation has decreased since that point. the possibility of the warming that we're experiencing being due to solar effects is 0%. that's not an exaggeration. that's a goddamned fucking fact.
this is not a debate. and i'm not willing to pretend that it is. i'm not sure which party you're working for, but it's really simple: you get your heads out of your asses, or you deal with litigation that makes the project unprofitable. you can't win this fight. give up.
you're fighting massive levels of public opposition, you're fighting legal realities that you're in a weak position on, you're fighting all concepts of morality and social justice and you're ultimately fighting against history.
you will lose.
deal with it.
this is not a nation building project - unless you're trying to build support against it.
this is not an economic windfall. the money's being shipped out of the country, and the product is being shipped out of the country. it's not creating jobs. it's not creating wealth.
it's a disaster on every level, in every way. and this is indeed very bad leadership.
peace1212
I guess there is no way that the Global Warming is caused by Solar Flaring/radiant heat increases from the sun? Is it possible in your opinion?
Don't asteroids and massive volcanoes effect global warming and global cooling cycles?
Why did my ancestors live in Greenland and Vinland prior to 1011?
Why are we not fueling our vehicles with cutting edge clean technologies?
Jessica Murray
no. it is not an opinion that global warming is not caused by solar effects. this is an entirely debunked, completely unscientific claim. in fact, this is one of the arguments that the ipcc uses. solar effects have been *decreasing* since 1980, while warming has been *increasing*. if the climate was being driven solely by the sun, we'd be experiencing global cooling. the fact that we're not indicates that the warming is not caused by the sun.
volcanoes and asteroids mostly have cooling effects. they can be understood, just like carbon emissions. generally, the way they're worked into the models is as a mitigating effect.
presuming that you are speaking of norse settlers, they were not your ancestors and your ancestors consequently did not live in this region. they were all killed. the reason norse settlers set out to this region is complex - but this has nothing to do with the issue, to the point where it's not even wrong enough to be deconstructed.
longtime_in
I imagine you would be surprised to learn GHG emissions attributable to livestock where estimated at 18% of annual emission in 2006 by the UNFAO. Recent analysis found that livestock and their by-products account for 32.6 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalents or 51% of worldwide GHG emissions.
Livestock also requires huge tracks of land and a significant amount of water. Both of these items are in short supply to sustain human life. I recently learned that researcher have developed a process to mimic the taste and nutritional value of beef by extracting protein from plant matter. The residue from the process could be used as a feedstock for energy from biomass.
You might appreciate how exciting this prospect might be. So I am sorry I don't get excited about your views on oil sands and pipelines. We have to open our horizons to both economic and environmental challenges we face.
peace1212
My ancestors most certainly travelled from Iceland to Greenland and Vinland. There is even archeological evidence that they settled in Baffin Island or taught their house building techniques to those who lived in a warmed up arctic around 500 AD.
I have heard that the global warming data is skewed, if you believe in ur heart that u are doing the right thing fighting against it then good for you. Respect
Jessica Murray
@longtime_in
i don't think your numbers are accurate, but the idea that we need to find sustainable agricultural solutions in addition to reducing oil emissions is not new to the issue. you state this like it's some kind of surprise.
as mentioned, i would also support taking measures to reduce agricultural emissions. i agree that the ultimate solution to livestock is some kind of synthetic meat and i would support policies that help bring synthetic meats to market. but the fact that around 10% of the emissions are from agriculture doesn't some negate the reality that the vast majority of them are from industry and transportation, or somehow make the tar sands ok.
these tactics are like...i don't know who you're trying to appeal to. seven year olds? who thinks in such facile terms? who sets up every issue in these illogical binary terms, and then tricks themselves into nonsensical conclusions via restriction of reasonable analysis? i could see my dog implementing that kind of logic. she doesn't have much of an attention span. but the idea that you're going to get any human to look at this data:
transportation + industry: 50%
agriculture: 10%
(that's sourced roughly from the epa, which i know is not global)
and conclude that oil doesn't matter because of agriculture is...just...???
Jessica Murray
@peace1212
that archaeological evidence suggests that the settlers in newfoundland were killed by the natives and the settlers in greenland died of starvation.
the earth goes through broad climate shifts. historically, some of it has been carbon related: huge volcanic eruptions like you say. some of it's been related to subtle shifts in the earth's orbit. some of it has been caused by life itself changing the components of the atmosphere. we may have caused some flooding back at the dawn of the neolithic, and it might even be the source of the flood stories in the bible. this is all fine and true.
but what we're dealing with right now at this very moment is caused by our carbon emissions - and this can be proven with a high degree of certainty. the sun part is....it's absolutely, totally wrong. and the other factors (like milankovitch cycles) tend to work in the opposite direction.
longtime_in
Maybe you might get a little less arrogant. I was not referring to agriculture,That is understood. Read 2006 UNFAO paper on livestock not UNIPCC on agriculture.
You talk tactics. You come across as a closed minded eco-terrorist. Where are the sources for your absolutes. I am done with you, clearly you too smart to have a civil exchange other than with yourself. Clatter on.
Jessica Murray
livestock is a subset of agriculture. emissions labelled agriculture should be greater than emissions labelled livestock across the board. further, sometimes when we say agriculture we also refer to land-use, and then the numbers get a little bigger. in some sense, it's intertwined. but, there's a difference between saying "we need to raise our cattle differently" and saying "we need to stop cutting down forests for grazing".
it's not that this isn't important. but this debate over the numbers is meaningless; the best you can do is convince me that more effort needs to be put into regulating farmers. but, for the record...
i couldn't find the number you're citing, but i found the following, and what it indicates is that it is taking a broad concept of "livestock" that also includes land-use issues. a number closer to 20% is believable. that 51% is more difficult to make sense of.
from the document you're citing:
"human populations, economic growth, technology and primary energy requirements are the main driving forces of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions (IPCC– special report on emission scenarios). The net additions of carbon to the atmosphere are estimated at between 4.5 and 6.5 billion tonnes per year. Mostly, the burning of fossil fuel and land-use changes, which destroy organic carbon in the soil, are responsible.
The respiration of livestock makes up only a very small part of the net release of carbon that can be attributed to the livestock sector. Much more is released indirectly by other channels including:
• burning fossil fuel to produce mineral fertilizers used in feed production;
• methane release from the breakdown of fertilizers and from animal manure;
• land-use changes for feed production and for grazing;
• land degradation;
• fossil fuel use during feed and animal production; and
• fossil fuel use in production and transport of processed and refrigerated animal products"
"Carbon dioxide
Livestock account for 9 percent of global anthropogenic emissions
When deforestation for pasture and feedcrop land, and pasture degradation are taken into account, livestock-related emissions of carbon dioxide are an important component of the global total (some 9 percent). "
they emit a larger share of methane, but the amount of methane is much less, despite being much stronger.
i don't see anything in the report that contradicts the idea that it's around 10%. 12%, maybe. whatever. not the dominant problem...
the other thing you have to keep in mind about this is that the carbon cycle for agriculture is a little different than the carbon cycle for fossil fuels. i want to be careful with how i present this because i don't want to make the argument that agriculture is carbon neutral, but the take-away is that it's not really a good comparison and you can't put the policies on the same footing.
ultimately, all the carbon that goes into and comes out of the farming on the level of the actual farming is atmospheric. in that sense, the cow and the corn are really just recycling carbon. i mean, you certainly cannot generate carbon this way. those cow farts are returning whence they came. the conclusion is that agriculture itself doesn't contribute to a net increase in carbon. with a caveat.
where it gets problematic is when you start looking at the imbalance in the inputs and outputs. while the farming itself is not creating carbon, there are things like the land-use issues i previously mentioned, transportation costs, oil-based pesticides and all these other inputs. but the ultimate problem is the scale. because farming is atmospheric carbon, if we planted enough trees then we wouldn't actually be increasing emissions.
that's different than releasing stores of carbon from underground. agriculture really pushes an imbalance, rather than a net increase and this is really relatively easily dealt with by planting trees. fossil fuels are actually introducing carbon into the environment.
at
04:15
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)