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.