[Zipperfish]

andyt andyt:

IF you're heating your home with electricity, incandescents are energy neutral. Canadians heat their homes most months in the evenings when lights are on.

Heating your home with electricity is like using a bazooka to swat a fly.

[Xort]

herbie herbie:

Yeah Xort that's the idiocy some of the oiltards are trying to push on the uninformed public elsewhere.

I take it your fuel your vehicle on personal outrage?

$1:

Only half the lawns in Prince George sport United Against Enbridge signs, therefore the rest must be FOR it. All the surveys are wrong. There are "lots" of Indian Bands supporting it. The fact almost every city council along the route has publicly come out against is only because they're intimidated by eco nazis.

I would fully expect local governments to try and extort as much money as possible out of any plan.

$1:

Why look at these maps Enbridge supplied. There's no obstacles or islands between Kitimat and the sea, there's no major tributary to the Fraser yards away because we trimmed the map to exclude it.
Let's not mention the earthquakes, landslides, avalanches or ever mention the extremely poison shit we have to IMPORT and pump all the way backward just to thin the bitumen.

Why didn't those points make it into the letter?

$1:

Canadians can't, don't want to, don't deserve to use the oil themselves, it must be exported.
We can't refine the oil. Don't want to. That's a skilled and highly paid union leftard job only your Dad used to think of doing in the old days. You should expect both your wife and you to work 80 hours a week at Wendy's and dream about owning a house and having a family.
There are no other routes. There are no other ports.

A refinery isn't free. If BC wanted to get into some of the action why doesn't the provincial government dig up the 30 billion and build a large upgrader refinery on the coast and export the fuel, or keep it for domestic production?

Why didn't the people of BC offer to build the pipeline and port and pocket the transportation fees?

If you don't like the route, why not offer some incentive to put everything down the trans mountain pipeline? It's already getting upgraded why not add 5 times the capacity? Enter into a joint venture with the operator maybe.

$1:

Yeah the proposal must be good. What other plan could risk fucking up the Fraser the Skeena AND the Inside passage? Nobody can afford salmon anyways and FFS you're not even allowed to eat the sturgeon.

So your argument is fish costs too much money, lets stop a plan to add +30 million a day to the economy.

[bootlegga]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

bootlegga bootlegga:

andyt andyt:

Show me some figures of overall ghg reduction as a percentage, and I'll believe you. Haven't we already been warned that we've passed the point of no return on ghg? If we really could make a significant difference with relatively minor adjustments, well shame on us for not doing so. We could also add a ghg tax to gasoline that really has a bite and gets people out of their SUV's and pickups. I don't know how significant that would be, but we haven't even tried that.

$1:

Countries spanning Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America, the Caribbean and the Middle East, have joined the en.lighten Global Efficient Lighting Partnership Programme to target the phase-out of inefficient incandescent lamps by the end of 2016. These 55 partner countries alone will save over US $7.5 billion and 35 million tonnes of CO2 annually.

Electricity for lighting accounts for approximately 15% of global power consumption and 5% of worldwide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. A switch to efficient on-grid and off-grid lighting globally would save more than $140 billion and reduce CO2 emissions by 580 million tonnes every year.

http://www.enlighten-initiative.org/

Yeah, it's the incandescent light bulb that's the problem. The problem sure has nothing to do with the God knows how many office buildings with fluorescent lighting, lit up all night long like damn Christmas trees.

I never said it was the problem, I just gave Andy proof of one little change we could institute that would have a fairly significant impact on carbon emissions. I'm sure if buildings across the country replaced fluorescent lighting with LEDs (as most new buildings do), it might led to even more carbon emissions reductions.

[Zipperfish]

bootlegga bootlegga:

I never said it was the problem, I just gave Andy proof of one little change we could institute that would have a fairly significant impact on carbon emissions. I'm sure if buildings across the country replaced fluorescent lighting with LEDs (as most new buildings do), it might led to even more carbon emissions reductions.

They are actually doing a lot of reallly cool things with new buildings now. Not just light bulbs, but supremely efficient HVAC systems that funnel pump heat around the buildings as needed. Green rooves reduce A/C costs. Light tunnels funnel natural sunlight into building interiors while reducing radiant heat. The great thing is that these types of buildings are good for the economy too. Higher capital costs are easily recovered over the lifetime of the building.

[andyt]

I doubt any of these measures will be enough, especially offset against an ever increasing population that is getting more and more wealthy - ie able to use more resources. Lighting accounts for 5% of ghg emissions a small percentage. And more people means more lights used, even if they are more efficient.

Transportation accounts for 25% of Canada's ghg emissions. If we were serious about global warming, that would be a great place to start. We could use engine technology to give fuel efficiency, not power. We could switch to smaller cars. We could use more transit. Take fewer airplane trips, more working from home. Use more rail vs truck transport. Use electric trains. Just put in a hefty national fuel carbon tax, use the money to build transit.

[peck420]

andyt andyt:

I doubt any of these measures will be enough, especially offset against an ever increasing population that is getting more and more wealthy - ie able to use more resources. Lighting accounts for 5% of ghg emissions a small percentage. And more people means more lights used, even if they are more efficient.

Well, the oil sands only account for about 8% of Canada's GHG emissions...I guess we shouldn't worry about that either?

These little measures are what will, ultimately, win this battle. A 1% reduction here, a 1/2% there, maybe 2-3% over there...next thing you know, you've dropped you emissions by 10%...maybe even more.

[andyt]

Doubt it. As I say, population will out do any changes we make. You're treating emissions like they are static, ie reduce current emissions a bit, but emissions keep rising. Your Copenhagen figure is a static one, ie we have to keep our emissions below that. But if we reduce rising emissions by 10%, that won't cut it.

[Zipperfish]

andyt andyt:

I doubt any of these measures will be enough, especially offset against an ever increasing population that is getting more and more wealthy - ie able to use more resources. Lighting accounts for 5% of ghg emissions a small percentage. And more people means more lights used, even if they are more efficient.

Transportation accounts for 25% of Canada's ghg emissions. If we were serious about global warming, that would be a great place to start. We could use engine technology to give fuel efficiency, not power. We could switch to smaller cars. We could use more transit. Take fewer airplane trips, more working from home. Use more rail vs truck transport. Use electric trains. Just put in a hefty national fuel carbon tax, use the money to build transit.

We don't know what will be enough. That should not be a reason for doing nothing. Like many issues, the Pareto Principle applies: you can tackle 80% of the problem with 20% of the effort. Addressing the "low hanging fruit" like coal power plants and cement manufacture just makes sense.

Sustainable cities offer more benefits than just CO2 reduction.

[ShepherdsDog]

$1:

rooves

that is such a controversial word.

[peck420]

Population
2005: 32,242,364
2012: 34,754,312
Net: +2,511,948(+7.8%)

GHG Emissions
2005: 736 Mt
2012: 699 Mt
Net: -37 Mt (-5%)

Goal: 611 Mt...we have made it almost 1/3rd of the way...

It would appear that we are making up for population growth now, why wouldn't we be able to continue to do so by becoming more conscientious in our society?

Went with 2012 because I don't have an official source for 2013 GHG Emissions.

[Zipperfish]

peck420 peck420:

Population
2005: 32,242,364
2012: 34,754,312
Net: +2,511,948(+7.8%)

GHG Emissions
2005: 736 Mt
2012: 699 Mt
Net: -37 Mt (-5%)

Goal: 611 Mt...we have made it almost 1/3rd of the way...

A bit misleading. Two years ago we'd made it half way.

[peck420]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

A bit misleading. Two years ago we'd made it half way.

More than 2 years. We made it half way in 2009 (689 Mt), but that was the immediate results from knocking down a bunch of the low hanging fruit, as you have already pointed out.

Now we are getting to the phase that requires more effort.