[Zipperfish]

peck420 peck420:

andyt andyt:

Show me some figures of overall ghg reduction as a percentage, and I'll believe you.

2012
Total CO2 emissions: 699 Mt
CO2 emissions attributed to buildings: 80 Mt (11.4%)

CO2 emissions attributed to a carbon neutral building: 0 Mt.

So...switching every building in Canada to a carbon neutral building (yes, many types of existing buildings can be converted), will net you around 11% reduction in total Canadian emissions.

A little late now, but just that change gets us awfully close to the Copenhagen target (612 Mt).

Out of interest, does that number include CO2 emissions due to cement manufacture?

[peck420]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Out of interest, does that number include CO2 emissions due to cement manufacture?

In the 80 Mt's? I doubt all of it is. A significant portion of current construction gets applied to Waste and Transportation categories...also reduced by changing our building codes.

[Xort]

I find it questionable that not accounting for the end use of the oil is a flaw in the pipeline proposal.

Exporting oil is a national level trade issue and policy concern, not a construction permit concern.

[Freakinoldguy]

Xort Xort:

If it was flawed it would only take 1 scientist.

True and I'd have no problem with they or him, pointing out the problems. But that's not what happened here is it? It would be far less dramatic if they'd said that a large group of non or barely qualified people got together to validate a scientific report claiming the pipeline was report was flawed.

I honestly wonder if the CBC is so arrogant that they figured nobody would question their inaccurate claim about the composition of the group that authored the report?

But, then again given the makeup of the 300 "scientists" it's no wonder they didn't give the Gov't any alternatives other than shutting down oil sands production.

[Freakinoldguy]

andyt andyt:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

And for some reason there seems to be an inornate amount of PhD's on the list. Are they all scientists to?

What degree would you expect a scientist to hold?


Gotta admit they lost me on point one tho: that it will increase ghg emissions. That means there is no oil transportation project that would satisfy these folks. Then they probably hopped in their SUV's with the stickfigure little family on the back window (the biggest threat to the environment is an ever increasing population) and drove home and sat by their gas fireplace to relax.

These folks are making the same mistake the war on drugs did, going after the distributor instead of the consumer. As long as there is demand, there will be somebody along to satisfy it. And what they don't want to admit is how much demand would have to decrease to make a whit of difference.

I think the term student coupled with PhD should answer that question.

[Zipperfish]

Xort Xort:

I find it questionable that not accounting for the end use of the oil is a flaw in the pipeline proposal.

Exporting oil is a national level trade issue and policy concern, not a construction permit concern.

The Panel wasn't for the purposes of issuing consturction permits, but to assess the overall environmental, social and economic impacts of the project and then (in this case) recommended that cabinet approve the pipeline with a number of conditions.

[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/

[Xort]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

The Panel wasn't for the purposes of issuing consturction permits, but to assess the overall environmental, social and economic impacts of the project and then (in this case) recommended that cabinet approve the pipeline with a number of conditions.

Again, the export of oil in the terms of damage to the global environment is a national policy level issue and that should be applied to all oil use and export, not just tagged onto one project.

The proposal's environmental concern should be limited to the environmental impacts and risks of the pipeline to the local area. IE a pipeline leak, a tanker accident, or a storage tank failure as a few examples.

What the flaw suggests is similar to saying construction safety wasn't properly addressed because it didn't say anything about the safety of buses that drive workers from Edmonton to the oil sands to work on the projects that make the oil that would be exported in the pipeline.

Draw back the scope a bit and stay reasonable.

What the end user does with the exported oil, should not be in the scope of a pipeline construction plan.

[Gunnair]

jj2424 jj2424:

Some of the scientists .




Deb Niemeier
Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Deb Niemeier received her degree in Civil and Environmental Engineering from the University of Washington in 1994. Her research focuses on the impact of low income families’ access to transport on jobs, healthcare, and schools

http://poverty.ucdavis.edu/profile/deb-niemeier


Christina Roberts University of Calgary.

Teaching (Department of French, Italian and Spanish):
Québec Literature; French Literature; Comparative Literature; French-Canadian and French Culture; French Language


Oh lets not leave out the poet!

Bruce Hunter

Since 1986, he has taught at Seneca College where he is a professor of English and Liberal Studies at Seneca@York.   In 2007, he served as Writer in Residence at the Richmond Hill Public Library and in 2002, at the Alberta Writer’s Guild’s Banff Retreat.

http://www.brucehunter.ca/index.php/article/About.html


All qualified "scientists"...lol

Hmmm...you chime in and you're a window licker for a food truck.

[herbie]

So write a letter to Stevey and volunteer to let the pipeline run through YOUR backyard.
Just keep it out of mine. And my fishing spot. And the fucking tankers off MY inland waterways.
Got it? The people it affects are AGAINST it. Drive from Prince George to Kitimat and the first and only PRO sign you'll see is in Smithers painted on the Chamber of Commerce. You'll see two or three other PRO signs after that.
Kitimat City Council had to come out against it FFS.
The scientists vs scholars (any fucker on that report is more qualified to voice an opinion than any poster on this site) megatons or mulitmegatons is moot. The risks outweigh the benefits for BC

[Xort]

herbie herbie:

Got it? The people it affects are AGAINST it.

Some of them are, others are not, some likely don't have strong feelings either way.

$1:

The risks outweigh the benefits for BC

The benefits outweigh the risks for BC.

Hey that's fun.

[Zipperfish]

Xort Xort:

Again, the export of oil in the terms of damage to the global environment is a national policy level issue and that should be applied to all oil use and export, not just tagged onto one project.

As far as national policy considering the environmental effects of anything--partuicularly climate change--it's pretty much crickets chirping with this government.

$1:

The proposal's environmental concern should be limited to the environmental impacts and risks of the pipeline to the local area. IE a pipeline leak, a tanker accident, or a storage tank failure as a few examples.

I would say that the economic and environmental scopes should be consistent. If you don't consider CO2 released in China, then you don't consider money made in China.

$1:

What the end user does with the exported oil, should not be in the scope of a pipeline construction plan.

An environmental assessment is not a construction plan.

[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.

[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.

[herbie]

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

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.