Canada's Environmental Stewardship

2»

Comments

  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,667
    edited May 2018
    I do none of the top 3. No kids, I have always lived car-free and plan on doing so forever, or at least until I'm so old I can't walk anymore, and I'm too poor to fly, lol... which means, of course, that I pollute the least across the board. *pat on back for being poor* Well, Vancouver poor, anyway. I'd live like a queen up north or in the prairies or the maritimes. :lol:
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Thirty Bills Unpaid
    Thirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 16,881
    1ThoughtKnown said:
    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
    1Thought...

    Without trying to come across as confrontational... I thought you were a big oil guy? Here you are coming across as very environmentally sensitive.

    I refrained from posting anything earlier because I wasn't sure what your angle was.

    What happened?
    Thirty, I suppose that would be understandable.   I am for exploiting the resource with a caveat.  Allow me to try to explain. Fossil fuel emissions are so misunderstood.  It isn't just oil, it's factories, coal, production of steel, natural gas and a host of other industries which are resulting in the rise of CO2 levels in our atmosphere. 
    Oil is still required and therefore I believe pipelines must be built.  The demand is too great to not get a slice of the pie.  I am a firm believer that it is part of a greater plan to reduce reliance on fossil fuels. 
    On the Canadian politics thread it was clear to me this was too much a political opinion a personal opinion NIMBY look at the environment.  The fact is, spills in the ocean or your backyard of oil pales in comparison to the damage greenhouse gases are doing to the environment of everyone. Its not just the BC coast... its everywhere.

    I don't believe we should just "leave the stuff in the ground" either. Is that a reasonable solution?  We need a combination of mitigation (reduce reliance on fossil fuels) and adaptation (carbon capture, sea walls for rising oceans, etc.)

    Finally the greatest power comes from knowledge.  I am currently taking an Environmental Management Certificate from the University of Calgary as part of my career development (I am a Health & Safety Advisor).  Originally this education was to "sharpen my saw" and since my employer was paying for it, why not?  Another challenge!

    As part of the curriculum there was an optional course called "The Science of Global Warming and Climate Change".  The instructor is a hydrologist (and an esteemed one at that) named Richard Manz.  In the 15 hours of lectures and our own studies I realized the "science doesn't lie" and the climate change modelling being done has been perfected over time and shows some disturbing results.  Not for generations to come, but for our generation (old buggers in our forties and so on). The temperature on the globe has risen approximately 0.9C since 1900 and the projections of RCP8.5 (current anthropocentric greenhouse gas emission rates) are dire.  Google it... there are great charts available.

    The best part? We have time to fix this. 2C is the "no turning back point". Economics still exist and we need capital to turn alternative energy sources into an economy. Not just for us, but for the emerging nations of the world who simply want (and deserve) our cushy standard of living. 

    So that's a self-admittedly long-winded answer to your question.  I felt very misunderstood with the political rabble, because it is political-will more than anything else which holds us back from change.  I work for an transmission company (only privately owned one in Canada) which supports renewable energy development.  Why? Our customers want it. Our biggest direct customers? Oil companies. I am proud to work for such an organization. 

    These customers... they know the future too.  We have time to still make money off this resource and use the money for R&D to develop technologies to better the world at the same time.  To be against a pipeline simply because of possible oil tanker spills or minor leaks along the way is irresponsible for the larger global problem of climate change, in my opinion.  I am not a NIMBY environmental advocate.  I hope this explains my positioning a little better.

    This explains your position very well- thanks for taking the time to do it.

    We're not fully on the same page, but we're not miles apart either. There's pragmatism in what you state and I typically view myself (or wish to view myself) as a pragmatic.

    Sometimes I wonder if the efforts to save the environment are worth it. We are on a collision course with a cataclysmic climate shift in the future. Barring a massive plague or world war where billions are wiped out... it's an inevitability. So what do we do? Do we try to preserve to eke out a few more generations... or do we accept the same fate the dinosaurs fared?
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • 1ThoughtKnown
    1ThoughtKnown Posts: 6,155
    edited May 2018
    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
    1ThoughtKnown said:
    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
    1Thought...

    Without trying to come across as confrontational... I thought you were a big oil guy? Here you are coming across as very environmentally sensitive.

    I refrained from posting anything earlier because I wasn't sure what your angle was.

    What happened?
    Thirty, I suppose that would be understandable.   I am for exploiting the resource with a caveat.  Allow me to try to explain. Fossil fuel emissions are so misunderstood.  It isn't just oil, it's factories, coal, production of steel, natural gas and a host of other industries which are resulting in the rise of CO2 levels in our atmosphere. 
    Oil is still required and therefore I believe pipelines must be built.  The demand is too great to not get a slice of the pie.  I am a firm believer that it is part of a greater plan to reduce reliance on fossil fuels. 
    On the Canadian politics thread it was clear to me this was too much a political opinion a personal opinion NIMBY look at the environment.  The fact is, spills in the ocean or your backyard of oil pales in comparison to the damage greenhouse gases are doing to the environment of everyone. Its not just the BC coast... its everywhere.

    I don't believe we should just "leave the stuff in the ground" either. Is that a reasonable solution?  We need a combination of mitigation (reduce reliance on fossil fuels) and adaptation (carbon capture, sea walls for rising oceans, etc.)

    Finally the greatest power comes from knowledge.  I am currently taking an Environmental Management Certificate from the University of Calgary as part of my career development (I am a Health & Safety Advisor).  Originally this education was to "sharpen my saw" and since my employer was paying for it, why not?  Another challenge!

    As part of the curriculum there was an optional course called "The Science of Global Warming and Climate Change".  The instructor is a hydrologist (and an esteemed one at that) named Richard Manz.  In the 15 hours of lectures and our own studies I realized the "science doesn't lie" and the climate change modelling being done has been perfected over time and shows some disturbing results.  Not for generations to come, but for our generation (old buggers in our forties and so on). The temperature on the globe has risen approximately 0.9C since 1900 and the projections of RCP8.5 (current anthropocentric greenhouse gas emission rates) are dire.  Google it... there are great charts available.

    The best part? We have time to fix this. 2C is the "no turning back point". Economics still exist and we need capital to turn alternative energy sources into an economy. Not just for us, but for the emerging nations of the world who simply want (and deserve) our cushy standard of living. 

    So that's a self-admittedly long-winded answer to your question.  I felt very misunderstood with the political rabble, because it is political-will more than anything else which holds us back from change.  I work for an transmission company (only privately owned one in Canada) which supports renewable energy development.  Why? Our customers want it. Our biggest direct customers? Oil companies. I am proud to work for such an organization. 

    These customers... they know the future too.  We have time to still make money off this resource and use the money for R&D to develop technologies to better the world at the same time.  To be against a pipeline simply because of possible oil tanker spills or minor leaks along the way is irresponsible for the larger global problem of climate change, in my opinion.  I am not a NIMBY environmental advocate.  I hope this explains my positioning a little better.

    This explains your position very well- thanks for taking the time to do it.

    We're not fully on the same page, but we're not miles apart either. There's pragmatism in what you state and I typically view myself (or wish to view myself) as a pragmatic.

    Sometimes I wonder if the efforts to save the environment are worth it. We are on a collision course with a cataclysmic climate shift in the future. Barring a massive plague or world war where billions are wiped out... it's an inevitability. So what do we do? Do we try to preserve to eke out a few more generations... or do we accept the same fate the dinosaurs fared?
    I watch a Noam Chomsky piece today on YouTube.  He sites climate change and nuclear war as the two big "elephants in the room" as it were.  He stated the Republicans pulling the strings behind the scenes are able to do so right now because the Trump narrative is taking everyone's "eye off the ball".  The mainstream media is so caught up in his buffoonery that the Republicans are systematically dismantling everything for the common person in the US.  That includes environmental concerns because as it stands right now, the elites can make big money off everything that is bad for the environment.  They KNOW climate change is real, they just haven't figured out how to make money off it yet. 

    My prof also explained to us that this is not uncommon.  Democrats pour money into environmental research and the like and the Republicans regain power and dismantle it.  He also pointed out this happens in Canada. This is a gentlemen who has performed studies and required research dollars so he knows "the game".  

    Man, it always comes back to politics *sigh*.  I really want to talk about the science of climate change and provide and receive statistical data to help people "see the light".  If you try to read the information on the IPCC website, like the AR reports, it is some complicated stuff and the summaries don't really tell enough.   The filtered information on climate change received through mainstream media is watered-down.  We need people to start realizing how climate change will affect THEM.  Watch this 3 minute video, it summarizes the possible effects:






    Post edited by 1ThoughtKnown on
  • Thirty Bills Unpaid
    Thirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 16,881
    1ThoughtKnown said:
    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
    1ThoughtKnown said:
    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
    1Thought...

    Without trying to come across as confrontational... I thought you were a big oil guy? Here you are coming across as very environmentally sensitive.

    I refrained from posting anything earlier because I wasn't sure what your angle was.

    What happened?
    Thirty, I suppose that would be understandable.   I am for exploiting the resource with a caveat.  Allow me to try to explain. Fossil fuel emissions are so misunderstood.  It isn't just oil, it's factories, coal, production of steel, natural gas and a host of other industries which are resulting in the rise of CO2 levels in our atmosphere. 
    Oil is still required and therefore I believe pipelines must be built.  The demand is too great to not get a slice of the pie.  I am a firm believer that it is part of a greater plan to reduce reliance on fossil fuels. 
    On the Canadian politics thread it was clear to me this was too much a political opinion a personal opinion NIMBY look at the environment.  The fact is, spills in the ocean or your backyard of oil pales in comparison to the damage greenhouse gases are doing to the environment of everyone. Its not just the BC coast... its everywhere.

    I don't believe we should just "leave the stuff in the ground" either. Is that a reasonable solution?  We need a combination of mitigation (reduce reliance on fossil fuels) and adaptation (carbon capture, sea walls for rising oceans, etc.)

    Finally the greatest power comes from knowledge.  I am currently taking an Environmental Management Certificate from the University of Calgary as part of my career development (I am a Health & Safety Advisor).  Originally this education was to "sharpen my saw" and since my employer was paying for it, why not?  Another challenge!

    As part of the curriculum there was an optional course called "The Science of Global Warming and Climate Change".  The instructor is a hydrologist (and an esteemed one at that) named Richard Manz.  In the 15 hours of lectures and our own studies I realized the "science doesn't lie" and the climate change modelling being done has been perfected over time and shows some disturbing results.  Not for generations to come, but for our generation (old buggers in our forties and so on). The temperature on the globe has risen approximately 0.9C since 1900 and the projections of RCP8.5 (current anthropocentric greenhouse gas emission rates) are dire.  Google it... there are great charts available.

    The best part? We have time to fix this. 2C is the "no turning back point". Economics still exist and we need capital to turn alternative energy sources into an economy. Not just for us, but for the emerging nations of the world who simply want (and deserve) our cushy standard of living. 

    So that's a self-admittedly long-winded answer to your question.  I felt very misunderstood with the political rabble, because it is political-will more than anything else which holds us back from change.  I work for an transmission company (only privately owned one in Canada) which supports renewable energy development.  Why? Our customers want it. Our biggest direct customers? Oil companies. I am proud to work for such an organization. 

    These customers... they know the future too.  We have time to still make money off this resource and use the money for R&D to develop technologies to better the world at the same time.  To be against a pipeline simply because of possible oil tanker spills or minor leaks along the way is irresponsible for the larger global problem of climate change, in my opinion.  I am not a NIMBY environmental advocate.  I hope this explains my positioning a little better.

    This explains your position very well- thanks for taking the time to do it.

    We're not fully on the same page, but we're not miles apart either. There's pragmatism in what you state and I typically view myself (or wish to view myself) as a pragmatic.

    Sometimes I wonder if the efforts to save the environment are worth it. We are on a collision course with a cataclysmic climate shift in the future. Barring a massive plague or world war where billions are wiped out... it's an inevitability. So what do we do? Do we try to preserve to eke out a few more generations... or do we accept the same fate the dinosaurs fared?
    I watch a Noam Chomsky piece today on YouTube.  He sites climate change and nuclear war as the two big "elephants in the room" as it were.  He stated the Republicans pulling the strings behind the scenes are able to do so right now because the Trump narrative is taking everyone's "eye off the ball".  The mainstream media is so caught up in his buffoonery that the Republicans are systematically dismantling everything for the common person in the US.  That includes environmental concerns because as it stands right now, the elites can make big money off everything that is bad for the environment.  They KNOW climate change is real, they just haven't figured out how to make money off it yet. 

    My prof also explained to us that this is not uncommon.  Democrats our money into environmental research and the like and the Republicans regain power and dismantle it.  He also pointed out this happens in Canada. This is a gentlemen who has performed studies and required research dollars so he knows "the game".  

    Man, it always comes back to politics *sigh*.  I really want to talk about the science of climate change and provide and receive statistical data to help people "see the light".  If you try to read the information on the IPCC website, like the AR reports, it is some complicated stuff and the summaries don't really tell enough.   The filtered information on climate change received through mainstream media is watered-down.  We need people to start realizing how climate change will affect THEM.  Watch this 3 minute video, it summarizes the possible effects:







    Okay... it seems like you are in a better place right now with regards to a suggestion. I wish to recommend a book I recommended to you a while back (which you weren't very receptive to given the context of our confrontational dialogue lol).

    If you are looking to probe this area and you have any extra time with your courses... check out The Shock Doctrine (Naomi Klein). It's truly a harrowing account of ruthless, large scale capitalism and supplements what you have written here.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • 1ThoughtKnown
    1ThoughtKnown Posts: 6,155
    edited May 2018
    I will look into it, but at the same time I encourage you to look into Vivian Krause's articles on where Tides gets it's cash.  Isn't it odd to anyone that only Canadian pipelines seem to have this large anti-pipeline agenda against them?  Those same Republican puppet masters are also doing everything they can to keep Canadian oil landlocked.
    Once again, we need to stop relying on fossil fuels, but we are decades from not needing oil.  Demand is still RISING.  It will be a combination of mitigation (reduce reliance on fossil fuels) and adaptation (carbon capture technology) which will help us avoid this impending disaster.  Make no mistake, it is real.  Google and compare RCP8.5 (where we are heading) to RCP2.5(what we must do). 
  • Thirty Bills Unpaid
    Thirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 16,881
    I will.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • Thirty Bills Unpaid
    Thirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 16,881
    Browsed quite a bit. From my browsing... this offer scenarios in succinct fashion (appropriate for discussion in a PJ forum):

    Some adverse impacts are expected by the time we reach 1.5°C surface warming above pre-industrial temperatures.  For example, widespread coral mortality, hundreds of millions of people at risk of increased water stress, more damage from droughts and heat waves and floods, and increased species extinction rates.  However, by and large these are impacts which we should be able to adapt to, at a cost, but without disastrous consequences.

    Once we surpass 2°C (which is internationally considered the "danger limit" beyond which we should not pass), the impacts listed above are exacerbated, and some new impacts will occur.  Coastal flooding will impact millions of people.  Coral bleaching will be widespread (exacerbated by ocean acidification), most coral reefs may not survive (Frieler et al. 2012, Kiessling et al. 2012), global food crop production will decline, and sea levels will rise by close to 1 meter by 2100.  Up to 30% of global species will be at risk for extinction.

    At 3–4°C warming, widespread coral mortality will occur (at this point corals are basically toast), and 40–70% of global species are at risk as we continue on the path toward the Earth's sixth mass extinction.  Glacier retreats will threaten water supplies in Central Asia and South America.  The possibility of significant releases of CO2 and methane from ocean hydrates and permafrost could amplify global warming even further beyond our control.  Sea level rise of 1 meter or more would be expected by 2100, with the possibility of destabilization of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, which would cause much more sea level rise and flooding of coastal communities.

    https://skepticalscience.com/climate-best-to-worst-case-scenarios.html


    Timelines for thresholds to be surpassed vary (depending on which RCP scenario is most likely). It seems that left unabated... 2100 is a time where the world would experience widespread 'pain'. 

    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • 1ThoughtKnown
    1ThoughtKnown Posts: 6,155
    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
    Browsed quite a bit. From my browsing... this offer scenarios in succinct fashion (appropriate for discussion in a PJ forum):

    Some adverse impacts are expected by the time we reach 1.5°C surface warming above pre-industrial temperatures.  For example, widespread coral mortality, hundreds of millions of people at risk of increased water stress, more damage from droughts and heat waves and floods, and increased species extinction rates.  However, by and large these are impacts which we should be able to adapt to, at a cost, but without disastrous consequences.

    Once we surpass 2°C (which is internationally considered the "danger limit" beyond which we should not pass), the impacts listed above are exacerbated, and some new impacts will occur.  Coastal flooding will impact millions of people.  Coral bleaching will be widespread (exacerbated by ocean acidification), most coral reefs may not survive (Frieler et al. 2012, Kiessling et al. 2012), global food crop production will decline, and sea levels will rise by close to 1 meter by 2100.  Up to 30% of global species will be at risk for extinction.

    At 3–4°C warming, widespread coral mortality will occur (at this point corals are basically toast), and 40–70% of global species are at risk as we continue on the path toward the Earth's sixth mass extinction.  Glacier retreats will threaten water supplies in Central Asia and South America.  The possibility of significant releases of CO2 and methane from ocean hydrates and permafrost could amplify global warming even further beyond our control.  Sea level rise of 1 meter or more would be expected by 2100, with the possibility of destabilization of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, which would cause much more sea level rise and flooding of coastal communities.

    https://skepticalscience.com/climate-best-to-worst-case-scenarios.html


    Timelines for thresholds to be surpassed vary (depending on which RCP scenario is most likely). It seems that left unabated... 2100 is a time where the world would experience widespread 'pain'. 

    Exactly.  This is the stuff I have been learning Thirty. I have to tell you, when I read your post it sent chills through me.  I am absolutely convinced there is NOTHING more important in the world right now than this. 
    Now, in my research (to further convince me we are not getting the truth here in Alberta) is that our federal government de-linked the relationship between GHG emissions and economic growth as far back as 2007.

    (Saint-Jacques, G. Canada’s Climate Change Mitigation Plan. Government of Canada, May 17, 2012)

     

    Then I watch the "Climate Change Guy":

    He presents the climate change scenario in a "risk assessment matrix".  The only bad scenario of mitigation is possible economic suffering.  If our government has debunked this myth then mitigation actions must be taken, right? The only provinces in Canada not reducing GHG's are Mantioba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Of this list Alberta is the WORST.  Approximately 70% of Canada's emissions are from Alberta and our rates are rising (unlike much of Canada which are lowering theirs with 2020 Copenhagen targets in mind). 

    I'm a safety professional so I began to think about this from a risk assessment perspective.  What does this mean to the Average Canadian. What does it mean to me? An analogy came to me:

    As a safety advisor I can tell you when you are looking at airborne hazard control it is broken into three parts.  The source, the path and the receiver.  It is always best to eliminate the hazard at its source.  This presents the safest process for workers. An example, a hood vent at the point of welding process taking fumes directly to a filter/scrubbers and released to the atmosphere.  A path mitigation would be overall-dilution ventilation (less effective) and the receiver mitigation would be a respiratory mask, etc. (which is more like adaptation). While all will work in theory, the best and most effective hazard control is the hood vent.  It requires little to no effort of the worker.

    In the greenhouse gas context, if the carbon emissions are removed from the source, this requires little to know effort of people in society.  Carbon is reduced or mitigated through other means and requires no action by people.  Eliminating the hazard (this to the environment) at the source is the best and most effective strategy as the adaptation for humans will not be a $150 respiratory mask with a p100 filter, it will be far greater than anyone can predict.  The risk in relying on adaptation is too great to consider.

    Paracelsus was the first person to inform humanity that all chemicals and gases are toxins, even the ones produced naturally.  The only determination of whether a chemical or gas is toxic to humans is the DOSE.  We are anthropogenically increasing the dose of CO2 in the atmosphere and the dose of this and other GHG's is going to change the environment around us. How could it not?





  • Thirty Bills Unpaid
    Thirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 16,881
    I agree with you: adaptation cannot be the answer. Having said that... you can successfully surmise I also agree with your analogy.

    I'm pragmatic in nature and a realist. I truly feel we're too ignorant to help ourselves. We 'might' be able to thwart our impending self destruction, but that would obviously demand changes from every scale of humanity (large to micro). I just don't think we can overcome the propensity for selfishness or greed to do so though.

    I care. I'll do my part. But the reality is we are on a sinking ship. And my original question looms: do we make every effort to try and sustain humanity for eternity... make some efforts to eke out a few more generations before shit hits the fan... or say 'f**k it let's enjoy this ride?

    If the answer to my question is suggestion one... then we have to hit the brakes hard.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • 1ThoughtKnown
    1ThoughtKnown Posts: 6,155
    There is hope in the mitigation side. The Shell Scotford Upgrader in Fort Saskatchewan (east of Edmonton) is one example of successful Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS):
    The upgrading process requires the production of hydrogen and that process results in the creation of CO2.  The Shell Canada Quest project captures the CO2 from the upgrader hydrogen manufacturing plants using a product called Amine which absorbs the CO2.  The CO2 is then separated from the Amine and is pressurized to a liquid form where it is sent by pipeline 65km north of the site to three inject well sites.  The liquid CO2 is injected over 2km below the earth’s surface where it is locked beneath water-tight rock.

    Another example is in Saskatchewan at the Boundary Dam Power Station, the first power station in the world to successfully use CCS technology. It produces 115 megawatts (MW) of power (enough to power about 100,000 Saskatchewan homes) and is capable of reducing CO2 emissions by up to 90 per cent. Coal is cheap to use and coal plants are very reliable. However, burning coal also creates harmful C02 emissions. SaskPower is increasing their use of renewable resources, but these power sources together can’t replace coal overnight. They still need a constant power source that keeps electricity available and affordable for the people of Saskatchewan. In April 2018, the CCS facility demonstrated reliability, being available 94.9% of the time. The CCS facility captured 70,039 tonnes of carbon dioxide in April 2018, which represents 72 per cent of its maximum capacity.

    One more example is how CCS can be economically viable:

    An Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) project which intends to use CO2 to flood the Clive oil field in Central Alberta. This results in increased production and recovery of additional quantities of oil reserves from existing reservoir after traditional primary and secondary recovery techniques have been exhausted. The Clive field will be designed to receive CO2 volumes from sources in the Alberta Industrial Heartland and pipeline systems will then be used to distribute the received CO2 to the well injection locations. The CO2 will be securely and permanently injected in this contained geological formation (Clive field) used for EOR purposes and permanent CO2 storage.

    So not all is doom-and-gloom.  For oil producing nations, the CCS mitigation is the best option as it places the GHG's back in the ground where it belongs to ensure the Earth's Carbon Cycle is maintained.  Oil is going to be used for quite some time yet and the energy companies will use some of the profits to R&D new technologies.  To your post, this cant happen overnight, but spreading the knowledge and convincing the "deniers" will ensure that the policy makers (people in government who can make change) will understand this is what the public wants.  People just don't really understand the science and who can blame them? I didn't until I took a 15-hr optional University Course. 





  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,662
    PJ_Soul said:
    Apparently, the 3 activities that individuals do that harm the environment the most are:
    1) Having children
    2) Driving cars
    3) Flying overseas

    And, btw, those who cause the most harm in this world? Rich people. The top 10% in terms of wealth create the lion's share of environmental damage, particularly in developed nations. A rich person in America creates 10 times more carbon emissions than a poor person, and the top 10% accounts for half of all carbon emissions. And the rich in the USA emit WAAAAYYYY more carbon than rich people in any other nation, as individuals. Canada's rich people are about half as bad, but still hold second place in the world as far as that goes.
    I'm always glad to see a discussion on environmental concerns so, 1Thought, good job.

    Those three activities are big, that's for sure.  I never had children and I don't fly, so two out of three for me.  #1, having children, is just that, the number one most harmful impact on the environment.  I do drive but I plan as many no-drive days as I can and ride share every chance I get. 

    I would add an #4:  Needless and wasteful consumption.  So much crap is consumed that is tossed out.  And much of what is purchased is made to break down quickly and be replaced.  Buying less crap and looking into buying that which is most durable would help.

    I wonder if possible the number one most harmful may turn out to be plastic?  As we all know, there is a monstrous amount of plastic in our oceans.  The unsightly stuff  that bobs on the surface is awful but what's worse is the tiny particles of plastic called microplastics that may prove to be our undoing.  These microplastics* are wrecking havoc on ocean health and at some point (which we are heading toward), if the oceans become over-polluted, all major mammal life forms (humans included) and many smaller ones will die off.  My belief is that our #1 concern right now should be for health of the oceans. 


    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • 1ThoughtKnown
    1ThoughtKnown Posts: 6,155
    edited June 2018
    brianlux said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    Apparently, the 3 activities that individuals do that harm the environment the most are:
    1) Having children
    2) Driving cars
    3) Flying overseas

    And, btw, those who cause the most harm in this world? Rich people. The top 10% in terms of wealth create the lion's share of environmental damage, particularly in developed nations. A rich person in America creates 10 times more carbon emissions than a poor person, and the top 10% accounts for half of all carbon emissions. And the rich in the USA emit WAAAAYYYY more carbon than rich people in any other nation, as individuals. Canada's rich people are about half as bad, but still hold second place in the world as far as that goes.
    I'm always glad to see a discussion on environmental concerns so, 1Thought, good job.

    Those three activities are big, that's for sure.  I never had children and I don't fly, so two out of three for me.  #1, having children, is just that, the number one most harmful impact on the environment.  I do drive but I plan as many no-drive days as I can and ride share every chance I get. 

    I would add an #4:  Needless and wasteful consumption.  So much crap is consumed that is tossed out.  And much of what is purchased is made to break down quickly and be replaced.  Buying less crap and looking into buying that which is most durable would help.

    I wonder if possible the number one most harmful may turn out to be plastic?  As we all know, there is a monstrous amount of plastic in our oceans.  The unsightly stuff  that bobs on the surface is awful but what's worse is the tiny particles of plastic called microplastics that may prove to be our undoing.  These microplastics* are wrecking havoc on ocean health and at some point (which we are heading toward), if the oceans become over-polluted, all major mammal life forms (humans included) and many smaller ones will die off.  My belief is that our #1 concern right now should be for health of the oceans. 


    While plastic is a a very harmful thing Brian and should be addressed, I am more fearful of greenhouse gas emissions.  Capture and sequestration technology must be part of the mitigation strategy.   Climate change is real and its effects are starting to be observed as we speak.  The Pentagon itself has warned it is the "biggest threat to US National Security" despite what the White House says.  That guy is more concerned about football players than the environment anyway.

    More and more companies are attempting to address the plastics issue. I noticed the fast-food (ugh) company A&W announce they will not issue anymore plastic straws.

    A researcher in Indonesia has discovered a way to make plastic from a natural source which can be ingested by animals.  My fear is that they already wipe out the rain forest for palm oil (North American junk food habit supply) and now will do more to grow the root required.  A micro-beer is now making edible rings for six-packs. 
    A company now says it has created an economical way to actually pull CO2 from the atmosphere to run a generator and create energy.  This one is exciting (my professor did not think was possible but it did come across on my LinkedIn feed).

    Norway has put the world on notice (like Jello Biafra in a way) they will not do business with any corporation that's supply-chain is anyway involved in the deforestation of any of the world's rain-forests.   I did not research this but some sort of legislation must have been put in place. An interesting move for one of the world's leading oil producers.

    A paradigm shift is happening.  I fly, I drive and have step children.  Living in Canada without doing any of those things is impossible. The transit system in Canada is AWFUL (no foresight here).  I need to fly to see Pearl Jam (its a wonderful sickness) and then there is the kids.
    But in every way possible I do my best to lower our carbon emissions (and Alberta has a carbon tax so there's that).

    Post edited by 1ThoughtKnown on

Categories