Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 53

Thread: NDP has made some big mistakes.

  1. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VROY View Post
    I'll answer the issues you addressed in your first post and then talk about the second.

    The idea that Volcanoes release more CO2 than man has been promoted by a group supported by Koch industries. Koch is a huge producer of Coal
    The reality is that Volcanoes can release about 320 million tons of CO2 a year, and man releases 31 billion tons a year. Which is 100 times as much as volcanoes.
    Volcanoes also release global coolents, such as sulfur dioxide and dust.

    You also asked about historic changes in the Earths climate. Things like Ice ages are caused by the fact that the Earth doesn't have a perfect orbit. Year after year the earth changes.
    Currently the Earth tilts toward the sun in the north American summer, but in 20 thousand years, it will actually be tilting away. There are many other factors that change in the Earths orbit,
    and when all these factors are combined, they are called a milankovitch cycles. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles )

    Earth has also had periods where the CO2 level has been very high, such as in the age of the dinosaurs. This high CO2 level was cause by geographical upheaval. i.e. ( the creation of mountain rages )
    These high CO2 levels actually increased the temperature enough to allow forest to grow in the antarctic.

    Historic changes in CO2 levels took thousand and thousands of years. Man has created a 40% increase in 200 years. If a person doubted the source of the CO2 they could examine it's isotopes C13 and C12.
    Plants have a preference of the lighter isotope, and since fossil fuels are basically plant material burning those feuls changes the ratio of the isotopes in the atmosphere.

    CO2 doesn't comprise a large portion of our atmosphere, but it completely absorbs areas of the Infrared spectrum. The absorption and redirection of IR photons determines how much time that heat energy spends in the atmosphere.
    Without any CO2 the earth would be 30 degrees cooler. If man increased CO2 to a level of say 500 ppm, the Earth will be about 4 degrees hotter.

    The results of that increase can be debated. Personally I believe a CO2 level of 450 may be perfect for Alberta. But increased CO2 levels weaken the Jet streams, and that is the reason that we can get rain in Jan, and the American seaboard can get 3 feet of snow. A slow jet stream meanders and allows cold air to travel south, and warm air to travel further north.

    Man is supposed to be the steward of the planet. When CO2 hits the 500 level, every species around the equator is going to be in serious trouble. Elephants and Rhinos may become a thing of the past.


    So your saying the earth does have natural occurring cycles that dictate the temperature of the earth? Regardless of what the reason is. In your examples it ranges from orbit of the planet to creation of mountains.
    Your also agreeing that the planet is currently getting warmer, which we also agree. However, you then state without bases other than man vs. 1 example of a natural form of CO2 contribution that man is creating the current upswing.

    I am not discrediting mans contribution, nor am I completely agreeing with it. I am simply stating that the current argument between politicians is the actual source of the current rise in temperatures. Man made vs. natural.

    Your science isn't wrong, but the current source of debate is what the true source. Its also questionable as to what man is doing to eliminate the CO2 contributions of man in the previous 200 years of CO2 production. All the conversations right now seem to dictate an elimination of production of CO2 rather than a "clean up" of existing CO2. Some very different beliefs are currently making policy and trying to prevent policy, so much so that we are discussing this on a car forum.

    Personally, I agree man has been a major contributor to global warming. I don't believe it is disputable. However, I do regularly get into discussions with friends that do not believe this to be true. Regardless of this, I think instead of trying to dictate to big business (coal, oil, forestry, etc) what they must do as far as production only that giving them equal opportunity to actually clean what they have done in the past. What I mean by this statement is that if they produce xxx amount of emissions, but can implement systems that remove xxx amount they would end up with a far longer lasting system of checks and balances that will long term allow clean energy to catch up, while keeping our economy strong, people in work and not have the radical changes from right to left.

    Just my .02
    Trailblazer SS
    1960 Falcon

  2. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stuvy View Post
    So your saying the earth does have natural occurring cycles that dictate the temperature of the earth? Regardless of what the reason is. In your examples it ranges from orbit of the planet to creation of mountains.
    Your also agreeing that the planet is currently getting warmer, which we also agree. However, you then state without bases other than man vs. 1 example of a natural form of CO2 contribution that man is creating the current upswing.

    I am not discrediting mans contribution, nor am I completely agreeing with it. I am simply stating that the current argument between politicians is the actual source of the current rise in temperatures. Man made vs. natural.

    Your science isn't wrong, but the current source of debate is what the true source. Its also questionable as to what man is doing to eliminate the CO2 contributions of man in the previous 200 years of CO2 production. All the conversations right now seem to dictate an elimination of production of CO2 rather than a "clean up" of existing CO2. Some very different beliefs are currently making policy and trying to prevent policy, so much so that we are discussing this on a car forum.

    Personally, I agree man has been a major contributor to global warming. I don't believe it is disputable. However, I do regularly get into discussions with friends that do not believe this to be true. Regardless of this, I think instead of trying to dictate to big business (coal, oil, forestry, etc) what they must do as far as production only that giving them equal opportunity to actually clean what they have done in the past. What I mean by this statement is that if they produce xxx amount of emissions, but can implement systems that remove xxx amount they would end up with a far longer lasting system of checks and balances that will long term allow clean energy to catch up, while keeping our economy strong, people in work and not have the radical changes from right to left.

    Just my .02
    Man produces far less CO2 than Nature. Roddychop posted an article which claimed that CO2 production is a result of temperature change. CO2 production certainly is affected by temperature. But that article was made by a women who works for the Heartland institute ( the same people who say smoking is good for you ) She also doesn't use her real name.

    What the article doesn't explain is that higher CO2 levels create more plant growth. With more plant growth more natural CO2 is produced, however what wasn't revealed is that more CO2 is also processed by the worlds plants.

    Nature can process all of the CO2 is creates. It can also process about 60% of what man is currently creating. The problem lays in the fact that CO2 will stay in the atmosphere for up to 1,000 years if it is not absorbed by plants or the ocean and therefore you get a yearly surplus of CO2.

    Are there other contribution to the Greenhouse effect? Absolutely. Are there other serious pollution problems? Yes. ( garbage in the ocean for example )

    The issue I have with the climate change debate, is that the debate is being screwed by misinformation. People of good conscience are being told that they are being fooled by the Climate hoaxers. And no one wants to be a sucker.

    The NDP decided to shut down the coal industry in Alberta. And taken by itself that is a good move. But they did so while china is puking out CO2. So Alberta is not going to make much of a dent in global co2 levels.

    If the NDP wants to shut down coal, they have to start promoting the fact that Alberta is being responsible. However people like Al Gore seem to have not got the message. Recently Gore took a big crap on Alberta when he was on Real Time.

    The NDP cannot proceed with doing what is right and expect a pat on the back. Sadly, the world doesn't care about doing right, it cares about what it gets. That's just the way it is in the dog it dog reality.

    In other words the NDP has to think, if we do such and such, what does Alberta get out of it?

  3. #23

    Default

    Regarding the Review. The NDP decided not to make any waves and have actually sweetened the pot for industry.


    article – A current “distortion” that discriminates on the basis of the hydrocarbon found will be eliminated so companies won’t face the same risk of loss or inefficiency when they find, for example, dry gas, when drilling for oil.

    – Current drilling incentives that were scheduled to expire beginning in 2016 will be extended and built into the new framework. Their effect will diminish in a high price environment.

    – New royalty regime for non-oilsands wells will follow a simplified “revenue minus costs” approach. Under this plan, a flat five per cent royalty rate will apply until a well’s allowable costs have been covered, followed by a higher rate that will increase with commodity price. The higher rates have not been determined.

    – The drilling cost allowance is to be based on industry averages for similar wells, updated annually.

    – The government promises “an unprecedented level of transparency,” including information on an easy-to-use website. A new capital cost index will be published regarding oil and gas wells. The province will also give prices, production volumes and allowable costs used to determine oilsands royalties.

    – An annual detailed report will compare returns to Albertans with those of competing jurisdictions while measuring job creation, investment, production costs, value-added development and environmental performance.

    – The panel recommends Alberta “seize opportunities to enhance value-added processing, suggesting it review options to develop a value-added natural gas strategy. It suggests more study to find technologies to accelerate development and commercialization of partial upgrading for bitumen, better utilizing a resource that is unique to Alberta.

  4. #24

    Default

    Stelmach 2.0

    If she actually knew what she was talking about a year ago, the whole thing would never have been necessary. Alberta's oil and gas opportunities are skinny as fuck at real prices and totally dead in the water at current prices. The royalties evolved to where they were over time for a reason. Stelmach found that out the hard way and now the dippers have too. The collective stupidity in this country is stunning.
    Tunnel Ram Scam: "actually dons language arts is horrible no way he could edit anything"

  5. Default

    Its VERY disappointing they caved to Industry, rhetoric, and supposed economic pressure, and left Royalties alone.

    AT THE VERY LEAST, they had an obligation to raise them to 2007 Royalty Review recommended levels.

    They are still the only choice here, but it is gravely disappointing.

  6. #26

    Default

    Tomak maybe you should stick to something you have a clue about (whatever that is). This has been looked at now by multiple panels and always the same conclusion. It's not a conspiracy - it's reality. If you don't believe it, I'll give you the opportunity to pony up your own cash to drill a randomly chosen well from my inventory. We'll see how cocky you are when it's your skin in the game.
    Tunnel Ram Scam: "actually dons language arts is horrible no way he could edit anything"

  7. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by klaw View Post
    Tomak maybe you should stick to something you have a clue about (whatever that is). This has been looked at now by multiple panels and always the same conclusion. It's not a conspiracy - it's reality. If you don't believe it, I'll give you the opportunity to pony up your own cash to drill a randomly chosen well from my inventory. We'll see how cocky you are when it's your skin in the game.
    I remember arguing with you in regard to Alberta's international reputation and pollution. You said, and I am paraphrasing, that Alberta was as clean as it could get.

    It is that reputation that is giving Alberta fits at this time. The mayor of Montreal, Obama, and others, are blocking attempts to more our oil to foreign markets, simply because of Alberta's poor reputation.

    Toma often knows what he is talking about. You know what you are talking about too. However Toma takes a longer look into the future than you do. You often seem to be concerned with the here and now.

    The here and now is worrying about business quarterly reports. The future should be the concern of the entire society.

  8. #28

    Default

    what is entirely astounding about this whole thing is there are so many people that feel oil is, always will be and the be all end all income for this province. the smart ones are filling the job and information sessions on renewable technologies to standing room only. OH I must be anti oil then. nope not at all. but oil companies have this province by the balls in both hands. this boom bust cycle has to stop and the oil companies have more control over it than anyone will concede. with the housing/credit crash of late 2008 early 2009 oil companies were the first not to pay their bills ( to me) but record profits were still being posted every 1/4. I used to think Alberta was a diverse place to be and live but some of the ignorance that has come out since the crash of oil is jaw dropping. the oil companies dont need to be propped up they are doing fine. they have never been propped up in previous downturns in the market. BUT everyone seems to feel the NDP has to do something to save the oilfield. the P.C party did not do anything to save the jobs shed previously either.
    Ford---at least they circle the problem

  9. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by klaw View Post
    Tomak maybe you should stick to something you have a clue about (whatever that is). This has been looked at now by multiple panels and always the same conclusion. It's not a conspiracy - it's reality. If you don't believe it, I'll give you the opportunity to pony up your own cash to drill a randomly chosen well from my inventory. We'll see how cocky you are when it's your skin in the game.
    FALSE. The only recent review and audit we had was 2007, and it clearly stated we were being jiffed.

    They partially implemented a few changes, then we're bought out, retracted the changes, and even went BACKWARDS.

    The CONservative crooks have been steadily lowering royalties for 20 years.

    The problem with it is, is that an economic boom costs money, and tax payers, to keep up with services, infrastructure, environment, population influx etc, and these additional costs were not covered by additional boom. So if its not self sustaining, it must be mitigated. Simple.

    The province was run down, services suffered, environment suffered, infrastructure suffered, healthcare suffered, AND we racked up debt.

    In a record oil price and production boom.

    Sorry, reality contradicts your fantasy.

  10. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coleo View Post
    what is entirely astounding about this whole thing is there are so many people that feel oil is, always will be and the be all end all income for this province. the smart ones are filling the job and information sessions on renewable technologies to standing room only. OH I must be anti oil then. nope not at all. but oil companies have this province by the balls in both hands. this boom bust cycle has to stop and the oil companies have more control over it than anyone will concede. with the housing/credit crash of late 2008 early 2009 oil companies were the first not to pay their bills ( to me) but record profits were still being posted every 1/4. I used to think Alberta was a diverse place to be and live but some of the ignorance that has come out since the crash of oil is jaw dropping. the oil companies dont need to be propped up they are doing fine. they have never been propped up in previous downturns in the market. BUT everyone seems to feel the NDP has to do something to save the oilfield. the P.C party did not do anything to save the jobs shed previously either.

    Most places are left worse off after discovering oil. People seem to think that bigger is better and that booms bring progress. Booms are transitory and often leave the public holding the bag for the damages done to the economy.

    I preferred Alberta when we were a wheat an manufacturing province.

    To this point the NDP has done little to make them look any different than the PC's. The CO2 reduction is not going to help at all.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •