เว็บ บอล แจก โบนัส ฟรี _ถ่ายทอด สด ยู ฟ่า คืน นี้_เล่นคาสิโนออนไลน์ให้ได้เงิน

424 posts / 0 new
Last post
epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..who are you talking to? i didn't write the piece.

montgomery

epaulo13 wrote:

..who are you talking to? i didn't write the piece.

I was talking to you because you posted it. I assumed that you would want to stand behind it. So if you don't want to stand behind it because you think it's bullshit, then that's fine too. I just thought it was worth mentioning.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..what you did is create some calculations then asked me to account for those calculations. i'm not about to do that.

montgomery

epaulo13 wrote:

..what you did is create some calculations then asked me to account for those calculations. i'm not about to do that.

Just some quick calculations which I'm sure can be challenged, but they served to blow a hole right through the article.? If you're saying that the article isn't worth your time to defend, I'm o.k. with that too!?

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..i actually thought the article was a good contribution to the discussion on electric cars. shows that the government is using money allotted for electric vehicles being used to build infrastructure for natural gas. this is in line with the recent corporate/government assault on unist'ot'en folk. looking to prolong the use of fossil fuels.

Sean in Ottawa

montgomery wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

Close to half of Canadian program touted for electric cars is funding natural gas stations

Almost half of the funding in a federal program Canada has promoted as a boon for electric vehicles is being used for natural gas refueling.

The Trudeau government has funded a nationwide rollout of 102 electric vehicle (EV) chargers, as part of a Natural Resources Canada program called the “Electric Vehicle and Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Deployment Initiative.”

The program has been promoted as fulfilling a commitment to put more zero-emission vehicles on the road. Environment and Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna recently touted the program as part of her announcement on new EV chargers across Quebec.

What is less known, is that this program has also funded the installation of seven natural gas refueling stations, and three hydrogen refueling stations.

While there are far fewer natural gas and hydrogen stations than EV chargers, the refueling stations cost much more to install, typically $1 million each, compared to $50,000 for an EV charger — meaning they are sucking up much more program funding per station.....

So the funding that's got to be around $5 million. ($50,000x 102=$5.1M) has already been spent twice over on natural gas and hydrogen stations? (7+3=10x$1M=$10M)

Can you clear that up and get back to us?

From the link:

"A National Observer analysis shows that, as of Jan. 25, a list of projects being funded under the program for which contribution agreements have been signed showed $6,502,000 had been given out for natural gas refuelling, compared to $7,967,000 for EV charging and hydrogen refueling. This would mean that the government has spent 44.9 per cent of the total program funding on natural gas stations."

Interesting that they are lumping the EV charging stations and the Hydrogen stations into one figure and the Natural gas into the other.

Can anyone clarify what the carbon footprint of hydrogen energy is? If this is more like EV than Natural gas then you would think the complaint would only be against Natural gas and the hydrogen and natural gas should not be lumped together. It seems like lumping all this togetehr into one program is not an honest representation of the promise.

montgomery

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

[ It seems like lumping all this togetehr into one program is not an honest representation of the promise.

Yeah, I would agree that it's not totally honest. It's just that the figures presented by the article, which was posted by epaulo, stood out to me as bogus.?

Quote:
The article:?"A?National Observer?analysis shows that, as of Jan. 25, a list of projects being funded under the program for which contribution agreements have been signed showed $6,502,000 had been given out for natural gas refuelling, compared to $7,967,000 for EV charging and hydrogen refueling. This would mean that the government has spent 44.9 per cent of the total program funding on natural gas stations."

And also has already exceeded the promised expenditure for EV charging. (102x$50K=$5.1M)

The math is mine, the figures aren't.

NorthReport

Good idea - wake up Canadians!

Zali Steggall to challenge Tony Abbott's Warringah seat at 2019 federal election

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-27/zali-steggall-to-contest-tony-abb...

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

montgomery wrote:

?

Nato's air force isn't significant consumption compared to private vehicles on our roaads. That's got to be the worst reason for grounding Nato I've heard yet!?

?

Why don't you actually learn something about the subject matter that you chose to insult people over.

The Iraq war was responsible for 141m tonnes of carbon releases in its first four years, according to an Oil Change International report. On an annual basis, this was more than the emissions from 139 countries in this period, or about the same as putting an extra 25m cars on to US roads for a year.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/14/pentagon-to-lose-emi...

?

Sean in Ottawa

kropotkin1951 wrote:

montgomery wrote:

?

Nato's air force isn't significant consumption compared to private vehicles on our roaads. That's got to be the worst reason for grounding Nato I've heard yet!?

?

Why don't you actually learn something about the subject matter that you chose to insult people over.

The Iraq war was responsible for 141m tonnes of carbon releases in its first four years, according to an Oil Change International report. On an annual basis, this was more than the emissions from 139 countries in this period, or about the same as putting an extra 25m cars on to US roads for a year.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/14/pentagon-to-lose-emi...

?

Usually we see no news on this factor but militaries the world over are some of the worst offenders in terms of carbon footprint. The worst single organization is the US military -- many references on this -- just google it.

Canada does not keep track. Like many areas, we just do not calculate or collect the informaiton:

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/ypknzj/canada-still-doesnt-know-how-m...

The G&M wrote about Canada flying blind in many areas due to cuts in collecting data just last week.

It is no secret though that militaries of the world are the worst offenders in terms of carbon use -- and with nothing positive to show for all that.

montgomery

kropotkin1951 wrote:

montgomery wrote:

?

Nato's air force isn't significant consumption compared to private vehicles on our roaads. That's got to be the worst reason for grounding Nato I've heard yet!?

?

Why don't you actually learn something about the subject matter that you chose to insult people over.

The Iraq war was responsible for 141m tonnes of carbon releases in its first four years, according to an Oil Change International report. On an annual basis, this was more than the emissions from 139 countries in this period, or about the same as putting an extra 25m cars on to US roads for a year.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/14/pentagon-to-lose-emi...

?

You were talking about Nato's air force, not Nato's air force during the Iraq war. And besides, your quoting of numbers such as '141M tons of CO2'? or '25M cars' is meaningless if not stated in relation to CO2 releases in total for a 4 year period or 25M cars in comparison to the number of cars on US roads. It's just your cheap and tawdry politics again.

That's not to say that 25M cars?isn't a significant number. Just to say that in the proper context of the conversation, it's meaningless, and Nato's air force for today's air pollution is a drop in the bucket.?

I'm saying that you are barking at the totally wrong reason for opposing Nato. And now, if you want to pull in your horns you can talk to me about the 'right' reason for why Nato shouldn't exist.?

Kropotkin, you really should try to accept me as a commentator on this board. It's not exclusively yours and some of your ideas are wrong to boot. Can we at least try polite disagreement and rational arguments?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

So our newest troll is revealing themselves in full light. When people give you facts you dismiss them. You can post anything you want even it is complete tripe. I never complain to the moderators I only engage in constructive criticism, to try and ensure the debate and dialogue engaged in is based on reality.

?

montgomery

kropotkin1951 wrote:

So our newest troll is revealing themselves in full light. When people give you facts you dismiss them. You can post anything you want even it is complete tripe. I never complain to the moderators I only engage in constructive criticism, to try and ensure the debate and dialogue engaged in is based on reality.

?

I think you're really bad for the party Kropotkin, because you're completely intolerant of any opinions other than your own dogma. You're in the habit of insulting others with crude profanity even if there's little room for disagreement with the one you choose to attack today. I think a lot of your problem is that you want to be seen as the most leftist on this forum and you can't accept that I'm more left than you. It shouldn't be such a problem for you; we should be able to work together and not allow the rightists to get away with any of their waffling bullshit.

But here's?an olive branch for you Kropotkin!

What facts did I dismiss??

Oh, and kropotkin, how about coming back to the discussion on 'socially responsible capitalism', which you ran away from? I still think the term is exactly right for the NDP, and it doesn't provide a weapon for the assholes who are continually calling us commies, socialists, pinkos, and other. You should know kropotkin, the righitsts hate the term!?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I am not involved in any party. So since you are so involved please give us some inside scoop on the by-election. Have you been door knocking or working the phone banks to ensure that Harris doesn't win?

jerrym

Speaking of carbon dioxide emissions, the brand new Sierra Club report is warning that besides causing immense damage to our forests and health, the extremely large wildfires of 2017 and 2018 in BC were "three times?higher than emissions from all other sources combined in 2016". Furthermore, these?"Forest emissions are not counted and that's the reason why they are largely ignored."?The wildfires are changing BC forests from a carbon sink into a net emitter. The provincial government therefore needs to develop a plan "to reduce forest carbon emissions, including banning slash burning, protecting old-growth forests(which store the most carbon dioxide) and ramping up B.C.'s?เกมออนไลน์FireSmart program,?which outlines best practices for reducing?wildfire risk to properties in vulnerable communities." ?Such a plan will not come cheaply, but the alternative in terms of human and forest health, monetary costs, and the general environment is even more expensive.?

"Uncounted forest emissions" represent a major hole in B.C.'s climate plan and show the need for a provincial forest emissions-reduction strategy,?according to a new report by an environmental group.

Climate-warming carbon emissions released from B.C. forests in both 2017 and 2018 were?more than three times higher than emissions from all other sources combined in 2016, the?report from Sierra Club B.C.?estimates.?The vast majority of the estimated 237 million?tonnes?emitted by B.C.'s forests resulted from?another?record-breaking?wildfire season that burned more than?13,000 square kilometres?of land.?

"Our forests are not helping in the fight against climate change right now," said Jens Wieting, a campaigner with the group.?We need immediate steps to make sure that forests can help in the fight against climate change, and not make it worse." ...

In 2016, the province pegged its?carbon footprint from non-forestry sources at?61.3 million?tonnes.

Forests can act as either a "carbon sink" that absorbs excess greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, or a source?of carbon emissions if it releases more carbon than it absorbs.?The Sierra Club estimates that B.C. forests absorbed about 28 million tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2016. ?But the group's report says B.C.'s forests started emitting more carbon than they could take in in the early 2000s.?The?emissions result from logging practices such as clear-cutting of old-growth forests and?slash burning, as well as the increasing impact of climate change including?pine-beetle outbreaks?and wildfires, the report says. ...

Last month, the B.C. government introduced the?Clean B.C. plan, part of the province's goal to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40 per cent by 2030, 60 per cent by 2040 and 80 per cent by 2050.?The plan redirects?revenue from the carbon tax into incentives like rebates for the province's biggest industries to move to cleaner operations.?But the Sierra Club report says the climate action plan lacks specific measures to reduce forest carbon emissions. ?...

A major challenge,?Wieting?says, is that forestry emissions are not counted toward?the province's official?greenhouse gas inventory. ?"There's no action in place to reduce these emissions," said Wieting. "Forest emissions are not counted and that's the reason why they are largely ignored."

The group is calling on the province to produce an annual report measuring emissions from forests and to take steps to reduce forest carbon emissions, including banning slash burning, protecting old-growth forests and ramping up B.C.'s?FireSmart program,?which outlines best practices for reducing?wildfire risk to properties in vulnerable communities.

Stephen Sheppard, a forestry professor at the University of British Columbia, said?there?has to be a "multi-pronged approach" involving industry and government?to?reduce the impact of forest fires on carbon emissions —?and it's going to be expensive.?"The budgets that we've had in the past to manage fires, which really meant suppressing fires, is probably very inadequate now,"?said Sheppard.?

The B.C. government has spent at least?$842?million?responding to wildfires since 2017.

A wildfire burns on a logging road approximately 20 km southwest of Fort St. James, B.C., in August 2018.(Darryl Dyck/Canadian Press)

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/sierra-club-report-fores...

?

jerrym

After all the promises from the Trudeau Liberals that the construction of the Trans Mountain pipeline will meet the highest environmental standards, we are finding out the truth. Examples of pipeline work in Burnaby and Chilliwack have demonstrated the damage the pipeline is doing to BC waterways and fish, as well as?the commercial salmon industry. Since this is occurring in communities, where what has happened is readily visible to the public, one has to wonder what is happening in the backwoods where people generally are not likely to see the damage.?

Work on a Trans Mountain pipeline crossing in a British Columbia stream has destroyed salmon habitat, raising concerns about the Crown corporation’s ability to build infrastructure through waterways if the expansion project proceeds, a scientist says.

Mike Pearson says the “amateur hour” work on the Stewart Creek crossing in Chilliwack will reduce food sources for coho and chum salmon and limit their ability to hide from predators. The fish are part of the diet of endangered southern resident killer whales.

“There was no consideration given whatsoever to the habitat, which is just not acceptable,” said Pearson, a biologist with 30 years’ experience, in an interview.

Trans Mountain Corp. filed documents with the National Energy Board showing its plans to cover exposed pipe in the Fraser Valley creek. It wrote that it would place concrete mats in the channel, extending about eight metres upstream and nine metres downstream of the exposed line, and cover it with small stones.

Pearson said the work was completed in August to September of last year. He visited the site in December and took photos that he says show most of the stones have been swept away by currents, leaving the concrete blocks exposed.

“The work has degraded habitat in several ways,” he wrote in an assessment filed with the energy board by intervener Yarrow Ecovillage.

The smooth, hard concrete provides no hiding places for salmon, supports very few of the aquatic invertebrates they feed on, inhibits plant growth and prevents fish from burying their eggs, the document says.

Pearson believes it’s not an isolated incident. An assessment he did of a pipeline creek crossing on Sumas Mountain in 2015 for Pipe Up Network, an anti-pipeline group, concluded the site was physically unstable and reconstructed with materials inappropriate to restoring habitat.

A stream-keeper has also raised concerns about excavation at Trans Mountain’s terminal in Burnaby. John Preissl has filed several complaints with the energy board alleging the work has caused sediment to fall into two salmon-bearing creeks.

Federal and provincial officials inspected the terminal in April and found improperly installed sediment and erosion control measures. A follow-up energy board report concluded Trans Mountain had fixed the problems by the end of November. ...

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government has purchased the pipeline and expansion project for $4.5-billion.

The expansion would triple the capacity of the existing line that runs from the Edmonton area to Burnaby. The energy board completed its first review in 2016 and recommended the government approve the project with 157 conditions.

In its report, the board wrote the watercourse crossing plans “would effectively reduce the extent of effects on fish and fish habitat.”

Ten conditions relate to fish, including that the company must file details on the presence of fish and fish habitat with the board before starting construction on watercourse crossings.

Most of the conditions are “a plan to make a plan,” argued Eugene Kung, a lawyer with West Coast Environmental Law.?“They don’t have any actual measurable effect on the outcome.”

A Trans Mountain pipeline crossing in Stewart Creek, in Chilliwack, B.C., on Dec. 12, 2018.

MIKE PEARSON /THE CANADIAN PRESS

?

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/british-columbia/article-work-on-...

?

?

?

?

jerrym

On Friday of last week the UN Security Counsel debate on how climate change is already impacting peace and security around the world and will increasingly do so in the future, even though the issue has been politically controversial. However, the evidence of its effects on the security of societies is growing all the time.?

“The relationship between climate-related risks and conflict is complex and often intersects with political, social, economic and demographic factors,” said?Rosemary DiCarlo, the Under-Secretary-General for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs in her opening remarks.?“The risks associated with climate-related disasters do not represent a scenario of some distant future. They are already a reality for millions of people around the globe – and they are not going away,” she stressed.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/01/1031322

?

?

The World Meteorological Organization’s (WMO) Chief Scientist, Pavel Kabat, briefed Member States on climate and extreme weather issues, explaining that climate change “is increasingly regarded as a national security threat.” He said climate change is “undercutting progress in the SDGs (sustainable development goals)” and has “a multitude of security impacts – rolling back the gains in nutrition and access to food; heightening the risk of wildfires and exacerbating air quality challenges; increasing the potential for water conflict; leading to more internal displacement and migration.” Kabat emphasized WMO’s commitment to support the UN and Member States with expert information and “cutting-edge science” for informed decision making, noting that WMO is increasing its support to the UN Operations and Crisis center through a dedicated advisor at UN Headquarters.

http://sdg.iisd.org/news/unsc-debates-climate-change-impact-on-peace-sec...

jerrym

With the extreme cold temperatures across North America, we can expect the climate change deniers to be out in full force. However, this is what was predicted in climate change models.

A large swath of Canada, from the Prairies to Nova Scotia, is under a deep freeze. Temperatures in Winnipeg are dipping down to –36 C Monday night with a windchill of almost –50 C. In Windsor, which is typically the warmest spot in Ontario, the overnight temperature will dip to –27 C with?a windchill of –40 C.?

Even in parts of the U.S. Midwest,?temperatures are expected to have a wind chill of –50 C.

This may leave some, like U.S. president Donald Trump, wondering where global warming has wandered off to. ...

The fact is, it's climate change, or global warming, that's behind?this extreme cold.?Ever since the bitter winter of 2014, a new winter-weather catchphrase has been making the rounds: polar vortex.?The polar vortex is nothing new. It's just that it typically?encircles the north pole. However, in recent years, it seems to be meandering southward every so often. ...

A recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report found the Arctic is warming?two to three times?faster than anywhere else on Earth. This temperature difference upsets the stability of the?jet stream.?And that brings the cold Arctic air southward where it can linger, a result that meteorologists call a blocking pattern.?

"We have seen more of these; we've noticed that trend already, that's proven. And all of our climate models show this trend will continue," Wagstaffe said. "And that doesn't just mean more heat and more drought conditions. It can also mean more of these extreme cold blasts or extreme wet or snowy systems staying in place longer than normal."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-change-polar-vortex-1.4998820

?

jerrym

Not only do the climate change models predicted the extreme cold temperatures they also predicted the extreme temperature changes that will accompany them, both of which conditions will cause major societal problems. To be fair this theory needs further data to confirm it but so far it appears to explain what is happening in this area well.?

Wednesday's high temperature in Chicago is forecast to be 12 below zero. Low temperatures from 5 to 15 below zero are likely in Indianapolis, Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, Albany and Burlington with wind chills as low as 40 below Thursday morning. ...

The cold blast won't last very long. The coldest air will be in retreat by Friday. By Sunday temperatures will back in the 50s in parts of the Ohio Valley — feeling like 100 degrees warmer than this week's lowest wind chills.

It should be noted that this theory is relatively new and there is a lot of debate in the climate science community about the extent to which such a connection exists. CBS News reached out to two leading climate scientists for comment about whether or not a portion of the recent Arctic outbreaks can be traced to climate change. Here's what they had to say:

Dr. Judah Cohen, a climate scientist at Atmospheric and Environmental Research (AER), told us:

I have argued that low sea ice and extensive snow cover [in autumn] as a result of Arctic amplification have resulted in more frequent weakenings or disruptions of the polar vortex in recent decades.

When the polar vortex is weak or "perturbed," the flow of air is weaker and meanders north and south (rather than west to east). This allows a redistribution of air masses where cold air from the Arctic spills into the mid-latitudes and warm air from the subtropics is carried into the Arctic.

Dr. Michael Mann, the director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, said:

These questions test the limits of both our available data (the apparent increase in frequency of these events is quite recent and so at best only just starting to emerge from the background noise) and the model simulations.

As we showed in our recent?Science article, current generation climate models don't resolve some of the key processes involved in the jet stream dynamics behind many types of weather extremes.

Honest scientists can legitimately differ based on reasonable interpretations of the evidence to date.

In summary, most scientists involved with this kind of research are intrigued by the theory. It is a very active area of research. Generally, they agree that more study and improved climate models are needed to zero in on the causes and effects.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/polar-vortex-what-is-the-2019-polar-vortex-...

jerrym

Chris Tollefson reviews three books below?that examine why Canada's political system is still paralyzed when it comes to dealing with climate ?change despite the Trudeau Liberals promises to deal decisively with the crisis in the 2015 election.?

  • Costly Fix: Power, Politics and Nature in the Tar Sands:?Ian Urquhart:?University of Toronto Press (2018)
  • Oil’s Deep State: How the Petroleum Industry Undermines Democracy and Stops Action on Global Warming:?Kevin Taft:?Lorimer (2017)
  • The Big Stall: How Big Oil and Think Tanks are Blocking Action on Climate Change in Canada:?Donald Gutstein:?Lorimer (2018) ...

Why is Canada so politically paralyzed in the face of such compelling evidence about the need for decisive action on climate change? ...

Urquhart argues that the 1990s Alberta tarsands boom was facilitated and characterized by a radical departure in government resource policy. Both federally and provincially, he argues, the 1990s saw the prevailing nationalist “think like an owner” approach to resource management dissipate and ultimately discredited. In its place, a continentalist vision was soon embedded, steered by an ideology Urquhart refers to as “market fundamentalism.”

And so, from the 1990s onward, the tarsands became the pampered and privileged child of Canadian government policy makers and influencers. According to Urquhart, what evolved was less an abandonment of regulation than a “re-regulation” that recast, in some basic ways, the subsisting bargain between capital and the state. In the process, the state — particularly at the provincial level — happily and completely abdicated its historic role in managing and controlling resource development and growth. ...

Like Urquhart, Taft is intimately familiar with the frontier politics of Alberta, and with the political power of Big Oil. For a good chunk of time he chronicles here, Taft was an Alberta MLA (2001 to 2012) serving as the leader of the Liberal party opposition from 2004 to 2008.

Taft combines his insider knowledge with a crisp and hard-hitting writing style. He sets out to ask why democratically elected governments, at both federal and provincial levels, have so consistently failed to take action on climate change despite compelling evidence that the fate of the future generations hangs in the balance. The answer, in his view, is quite simple: “global warming is a death sentence for the fossil fuel industry.” To delay that sentence, Taft argues that the industry has spent untold millions to capture key democratic institutions including political parties, governments, regulators and universities. ...

According to Taft, the Alberta government sold the oilsands “at fire-sale prices” with industry “gorg[ing] itself until it grew so big, it began to trip on its own tentacles.” As Urquhart puts it, the “irrational exuberance” of this period, “... encouraged by market fundamentalism’s impact on government decision-making, spawned a litany of damage, problems, and challenges.” ...

851px version of SyncrudeMildredLakeFacility.jpg

?An open mine pit in front of Syncrude’s Mildred Lake facility.?Photo: Greenpeace / Eamon MacMahon. ...

Among the impacts chronicled is the price paid by nature and the environment in the tarsands region (an area Urquhart refers to a “landscape of sacrifice,” one that borders Wood Buffalo National Park, Canada’s largest national park and a UNESCO world heritage site). Urquhart also provides a nuanced account of the detrimental effects of the boom on Canada’s ability to meet its international greenhouse gas reduction targets. ...

Donald Gutstein’s latest book,?The Big Stall, riffs off many of the same themes. A retired communications professor at Simon Fraser University, Gutstein offers a rollicking and opinionated diatribe about corporate power in an era of climate change rendered Chomsky-style through a blizzard of facts and information. More of a Shadbolt than a Bateman, Gutstein’s painting of how powerful business interests and their propagandists have succeeded in blocking action on climate change is loud, proud and defiantly left-wing. Gutstein, like Taft, clearly relishes exposing the backroom deals and clandestine relationships, both in Canada and the U.S., that help explain the complex politics of climate change, a politics that all three authors would agree has become heavily corporate-dominated.

A provocative aspect of Gutstein’s analysis is his portrayal of the rise of what he calls the “New Gospel” — the notion that governments should respond to climate change by adopting business-friendly policy tools such as carbon pricing. In Gutstein’s view, carbon pricing is a Trojan horse, a measure favoured by business for purely self-interested reasons. His book also offers a highly skeptical interpretation of the Paris Climate Agreement, which he calls “Big Oil’s Deal” due to its reliance on carbon pricing as a policy instrument while eschewing the imposition of binding national targets. ...

All three books recognize that the continuing power exercised by Big Oil is a function of both the efforts of the business interests and their traditional allies as well as the corresponding inability of potential counter-movements to gain political traction. Urquhart, in particular, tackles this complex question with some finesse exploring why Big Labour, environmental groups and First Nations have yet to mount a serious challenge to the dominance of Big Oil. To some extent, these reasons relate to overt efforts by industry to co-opt potential opposition. Institutional factors that fragment and undermine efforts by opponents to have a voice in regulatory decision and policy-making also play a role, as well as more simply what Urquhart calls “the compelling and nature of the ideology of market fundamentalism.” ...

Gutstein concludes?The Big Stall?with a rabble-rousing chapter that exhorts us to question growth and to question (spoiler alert) economists. Instead, he argues, we should look to the courts and to Parliament to lend recognition to Indigenous rights and to push for the recognition of such rights internationally, including in international climate conventions. In his view, “Big Oil is correct to fear entrenchment of Indigenous rights in climate change treaties, since it could materially affect business as usual.” He also suggests that we should likewise endow nature with binding legal rights to provide a counterbalance to the rights enjoyed by corporations both under domestic and international law. ...

Urquhart is less effusive. In his view, recent experience, federally and provincially, has demonstrated that the “institutional legacy” of Big Oil-friendly rules and institutions is highly resilient even in the face of dramatic electoral change. For Big Oil to be displaced from its dominant role in Canadian politics would require, in his view, substantial changes in the nature of the Canadian state, and for the issue of combating climate change to acquire a much greater level of political/electoral salience. This, he acknowledges, may well “require a degree of mass political organization and mobilization Canadian environmentalism hasn’t seen yet.”

Taft ends his book on a more optimistic note, with some very specific suggestions. In a concluding chapter, he argues that the end game must be “crossing the divide between a high-carbon present and the post-carbon future with determination and speed... the goal of humanity must be to reach zero emissions by mid-century, and even then we will need to brace for lifetimes of climate upheaval.” ...

All three books elucidate the challenges this mobilization will face. The urgency of mounting this mobilization is undeniable, not only as the result of the dwindling time we have left to curb global temperature rises associated with greenhouse gas emissions, but also due to pending actions and decisions on the political front. It seems pretty clear, for example, that the Trudeau government is bound and determined to grant regulatory approval to the TMX pipeline project, which it now owns, by mid-2019. ...

And so, within weeks, it’s likely we will be embroiled in a second round of lawsuits and protests challenging the TMX project, and the process by which it has secured “re-approval” — a re-approval pursuant to the very Harper rules that Justin Trudeau promised, if elected, he would repeal to restore public trust, but which nonetheless still govern the TMX review process.

https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2019/01/28/Canada-Petro-Paralysis/

?

?

?

jerrym

The Trudeau Liberal federal government gap between their 2030 Paris Agreement emissions target and actual emissions continues to grow wider and wider with each new year. AND THAT'S THE GOOD NEWS! It hopes it solve the problem by playing games with the numbers.?

The numbers come from the latest?climate pollution projections?report,"Canada's Greenhouse Gas and Air Pollutant Emissions Projections 2018." Each year, the government tallies up its projections, and each year the picture has gotten worse. ...

Back in 2016, the Canadian government projected that all current and proposed policies (plus emissions credits they hope to be able to count) would get Canada to?within 44 million tonnes of CO2?(MtCO2) of the 2030 target. ?The next year the projected "emissions gap" widened to?66 MtCO2. ?And now, the government's newest projections show the gap has widened even further. They now project a gap of 78 MtCO2. ?Unfortunately, that's the good news.?According to the new report, Canada's actual emissions are projected to be even higher than that: 115 MtCO2 above their 2030 Paris target, or less than halfway to the target.?

The government is hoping to reduce that number by 37 MtCO2 in "emissions credits" which would be bought from California and claimed from carbon in Canada’s forests. However, these credits are uncertain. For one thing Canada doesn't have permission to count them under the Paris Agreement. For another, the amount is speculative at this point.

The gap between Canada's proposed climate efforts and its 2030 Paris Agreement target has grown even wider in the last year. The federal government is now predicting a gap larger than all emissions from the province of Quebec.?The numbers come from the latest?climate pollution projections?report,"Canada's Greenhouse Gas and Air Pollutant Emissions Projections 2018." Each year, the government tallies up its projections, and each year the picture has gotten worse.

Back in 2016, the Canadian government projected that all current and proposed policies (plus emissions credits they hope to be able to count) would get Canada to?within 44 million tonnes of CO2?(MtCO2) of the 2030 target. ?The next year the projected "emissions gap" widened to?66 MtCO2. ?And now, the government's newest projections show the gap has widened even further. They now project a gap of 78 MtCO2. ...

Unfortunately, that's the good news.?According to the new report, Canada's actual emissions are projected to be even higher than that: 115 MtCO2 above their 2030 Paris target, or less than halfway to the target.?The government is hoping to reduce that number by 37 MtCO2 in "emissions credits" which would be bought from California and claimed from carbon in Canada’s forests. However, these credits are uncertain. For one thing Canada doesn't have permission to count them under the Paris Agreement. For another, the amount is speculative at this point. ...

With or without these credits, the latest report shows that Canada is on track to miss its 2030 climate target by a large and growing amount. ...

The federal and provincial governments have proposed — but not yet enacted — several new climate policies. These would improve the situation but would still get Canada less than halfway to the goal. ...

?The Canadian government is also hoping to count some "emissions credits" towards the target.?The new report lists projections for two kinds of "credits." One is an ongoing effort to claim credits that Quebec is buying from California under the Western Climate Initiative (WCI). The second is a newly introduced effort to count some carbon credits from Canada’s forests (LULUCF). ?Both are speculative at this point. My chart shows them as dashed grey boxes, just below the oil & gas sector. They are currently projected to add up to 37 MtCO2 in 2030. ...

But the most important thing to note is that even if the government finds a way to count these credits, Canada still wouldn’t be close to meeting its 2030 Paris target. Canada's climate gap would be 78 MtCO2. That's more than the province of Quebec emits today.?And, as mentioned above, this emissions gap keeps growing significantly wider each time the government updates its projections. ...

If the oil & gas sector reduced emissions in line with the national goal — a 30 per cent reduction from 2005 levels — then this sector's emissions would fall by 47 MtCO2 by 2030. The yellow bar on the chart shows what this would look like. In this scenario, Canada as a whole would be on track to meet its 2030 Paris climate target. ...

However, instead of reducing emissions, the oil & gas sector is on track to increase its climate pollution by 23 per cent. That's creating an emissions gap from just this one sector of 84 MtCO2. And as we've seen above, that's bigger than the nation's entire gap.?If the government continues on the current path of allowing the oil & gas sector to emit 84 MtCO2 more than its share of the nation's target, then they will need to choose other parts of the economy to make large additional cuts to make up for it. That's known as "burden shifting" and in this case the burden is the size of all the emissions from Canada’s second most populous province. ?That’s the elephant in the room when it comes to Canada's climate goals. How large will governments allow the oil & gas emissions burden to grow? And the follow-up question is: who will government pick to shoulder that burden??

Unfortunately, as with previous climate reports, the government fails to address these critical questions. Instead of answers, it projects only a widening climate gap — now 78 to 115 MtCO2 — without any specifics about how it plans to close the gap. ...

The government's own calculations show that Canada's managed forests have transitioned from small carbon sinks into large carbon emitters in recent years. ...

The primary reason for this switch to carbon emitting is the increasing scale of wildfires and insect outbreaks. Both increases are being driven in large part by human-induced climate change.?Even though our forests are shifting into being huge carbon emitters, Canada hopes to claim carbon credits from them. ...

Whether Canada can find a way claim carbon offsets from forestlands that have become large carbon emitters is yet to be seen.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/01/30/analysis/canadas-climate-gap...

?

?

jerrym

The British medical magazine has a new report out that climate change is interacting with undernutrition and obesity to create a global pandemic.?

The Lancet calls it the?“Global Syndemic.”?The report’s authors say we’re facing three pandemics — undernutrition, obesity and climate change — that are interacting to form a “synergy of epidemics,” or syndemic, and it’s a global problem. ...

Climate change is having serious effects on human health, bringing “crop failures, reduced food production, extreme weather events that produce droughts and flooding, increased food-borne and other infectious diseases, and civil unrest.” Those climate effects, the report says, will end up costing five to 10 per cent of global GDP, while investing just one per cent of GDP could stop the increase in climate change.

The Lancet report is blunt about why we do so little, citing “the power of vested interests by commercial actors whose engagement in policy often constitutes a conflict of interest that is at odds with the public good and planetary health.”?

For example, “The fossil fuel and food industries that are responsible for driving the Global Syndemic receive more than $5 trillion in annual subsidies from governments.” In other words, we’re spending our tax dollars on the razors that are cutting our own throats. ...

Among its recommendations, the report calls for “double-duty” actions, things like promoting public transit, which results in both increased physical activity and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. ?Similarly, promoting plant-based diets and reducing meat consumption will help reduce obesity and heart disease and cut methane production from livestock. Cutting subsidies to fossil fuel and the food industries would allow subsidies to sustainable energy and transportation as well as local food-production systems.

Health Canada’s recently updated?food guide?is largely in step with the Lancet report. But the meat and processed-food industries are?fighting?the changes, just as the fossil fuel industry has fought action on climate change.?

To counter such lobbies, the report recommends “collective approaches to common challenges” by building new coalitions both nationally and internationally.

https://www.thetyee.ca/News/2019/02/01/Malnutrition-Obesity-Threaten-Fut...

Aristotleded24

jerrym wrote:
Not only do the climate change models predicted the extreme cold temperatures they also predicted the extreme temperature changes that will accompany them, both of which conditions will cause major societal problems. To be fair this theory needs further data to confirm it but so far it appears to explain what is happening in this area well.?

Wednesday's high temperature in Chicago is forecast to be 12 below zero. Low temperatures from 5 to 15 below zero are likely in Indianapolis, Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, Albany and Burlington with wind chills as low as 40 below Thursday morning. ...

The cold blast won't last very long. The coldest air will be in retreat by Friday. By Sunday temperatures will back in the 50s in parts of the Ohio Valley — feeling like 100 degrees warmer than this week's lowest wind chills.

It should be noted that this theory is relatively new and there is a lot of debate in the climate science community about the extent to which such a connection exists. CBS News reached out to two leading climate scientists for comment about whether or not a portion of the recent Arctic outbreaks can be traced to climate change. Here's what they had to say:

Dr. Judah Cohen, a climate scientist at Atmospheric and Environmental Research (AER), told us:

I have argued that low sea ice and extensive snow cover [in autumn] as a result of Arctic amplification have resulted in more frequent weakenings or disruptions of the polar vortex in recent decades.

When the polar vortex is weak or "perturbed," the flow of air is weaker and meanders north and south (rather than west to east). This allows a redistribution of air masses where cold air from the Arctic spills into the mid-latitudes and warm air from the subtropics is carried into the Arctic.

Dr. Michael Mann, the director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, said:

These questions test the limits of both our available data (the apparent increase in frequency of these events is quite recent and so at best only just starting to emerge from the background noise) and the model simulations.

As we showed in our recent?Science article, current generation climate models don't resolve some of the key processes involved in the jet stream dynamics behind many types of weather extremes.

Honest scientists can legitimately differ based on reasonable interpretations of the evidence to date.

In summary, most scientists involved with this kind of research are intrigued by the theory. It is a very active area of research. Generally, they agree that more study and improved climate models are needed to zero in on the causes and effects.

">https://www.cbsnews.com/news/polar-vortex-what-is-the-2019-polar-vortex-...

While Iqaluit in the far north has actually seen several days warmer than Winnipeg in the last week.

Pages