Home » Babble » walking the talk » environmental justice
babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

Global Warming Scare May Have Peaked

99 replies [Last post]

Comments

Policywonk
Offline
Joined: Feb 6 2005
February 20, 2012 - 6:50pm
#91

NorthReport wrote:

Coal, not oilsands, true climate change bad guy: study
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/SciTech/20120219/coal-climate-change-study-120219/

To some extent this is nothing new, as even in Alberta there are more GHG emissions from coal-fired thermal electricity than tar sands production (yes this study was about emissions from burning the end product). I'm not quite sure of the justification for calling emissions from production double counting though. That could be factored in somehow. Natural gas seems to be not as clean burning as advertised, nor is production particularly clean, and it is used for tar sands production.


Gaian
Offline
Joined: Aug 5 2011
February 21, 2012 - 7:08pm
#92
Indeed. The natural gas consumed in the production of one barrel of sludge would heat my semi during the three cold months of winter in Ontario. Our grandkids are going to love us, find new expletives to describe our morality...and the ease with which "science" can be used (like the study) along with "morality" (ethical oil) to capture the sympathy/vote of the out-to-lunch Canadian driver. Propaganda works.

Policywonk
Offline
Joined: Feb 6 2005
February 22, 2012 - 2:42am
#93

http://tinyurl.com/Weaver-Swart-Study

This is Climate Progress' take.


Gaian
Offline
Joined: Aug 5 2011
February 22, 2012 - 4:05pm
#94
NorthReport wrote:

Coal, not oilsands, true climate change bad guy: study
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/SciTech/20120219/coal-climate-change-study-120219/

A letter to the editor in today's Globe nicely answers that one: "Calculating the theoretical warming effect of burning all know reserves of each particular fossil fuel - all at once - is an irrelevant comparison. It's the rate of emissions of greenhouse gases - per year - that is the rete-determioning factor for climate change. "Different fuels do produce different ratios of carbon dioxide and other contiminants, per unit of net energy gained. And coal releases more toxins than natural gas, for example.But it's not the total known reserves of each fuel that occur 'in the ground' that can be used to measure the environmental impact; it's how much of each one we burn every year. "Garbage in, garbage out." Obviously a scientific mind is needed to translate the meaning of another scientists work for the species Homo sapiens.

Gaian
Offline
Joined: Aug 5 2011
February 22, 2012 - 11:39pm
#95
Another interesting bit of data, supporting the idea that folks really don't much like to talk about/consider climate change. This thread has been around for more that 90 entries, but has been viewed only a bit more than 400 times in nearly 4 years. The viewings of a "popular" thread are more than 10 views to each entry. Perhaps like the lady observed in that Globe essay about people in Montral suddenly avoiding talk about the weather. It, too, exposes our "values." :)

Gaian
Offline
Joined: Aug 5 2011
February 25, 2012 - 10:36am
#96
As Weaver said, "the real message is that the world has to start limiting its use of fossil fuels. This idea that we're going to somehow run out of coal and natural gas and fossil fuels is really misplaced. We'll run out of human ability to live on the planet long before we run out of them." It speaks volumes to the "question" of "peak oil," of course. But this is all academic, since Mainstreet is being trying to sublimate it's beginnings at every turn. The "Naked Ape" can't handle it, psychologically.

Gaian
Offline
Joined: Aug 5 2011
February 25, 2012 - 4:06pm
#97
Maybe people being scared speechless is a sign of "peaking" ? essays in the Globe, i.e. "Where did winter go?" (Feb. 21) Megan Durnford first observed that "Everone's noticed the warm weather and lack of snow in my Montreal hometown,but many people don't want to talk about it...." "Then I got it. Talking about wacky weather is ultimately a reflection of one's viewpoint regarding climate change. "Is a modified climate the price we have to pay to fully exploit oil and gas resources? Or does climate change represent an unacceptable threat to life on Earth? Comments on the weather are no longer innocuous space-fillers; they are glimpses into your value system. "Weather used to be a safe topic becauase we, mere mortals, felt that we had no control over its vagaries. Talking about it was akin to commenting on the blueness of the sky or the fullness of the moon. (a personal aside, I always say "is a (winter) sky blue" anymore). "Now the international scientists agree that human activities are slowly altering the Earth's climate, talking about the weather is risky business. "There are dozens of radically different opinions on how we should respond to climate change, and so weather has joined the ranks of sex, religion, politics and other traditionally taboo subjects."

Policywonk
Offline
Joined: Feb 6 2005
March 2, 2012 - 2:19pm
#98

http://www.countercurrents.org/cuei020312.htm

The only way to limit global warming is to cap and reduce concentrations, and that can't be done without reducing emissions.


NorthReport
Offline
Joined: Jul 6 2008
September 20, 2012 - 9:15pm
#99

The Staggering Decline of Sea Ice at the Frontline of Climate Change

Scientists on board Greenpeace's vessel exploring the minimum extent of the ice cap are shocked at the speed of the melt.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/09/staggering-decline-sea-ic...


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments