by NorthernPesos » Sat Jan 25, 2025 8:41 am
by Of the 4 States » Sat Jan 25, 2025 8:44 am
by NorthernPesos » Sat Jan 25, 2025 8:47 am
Our environment is obviously undergoing major changes, and I believe that trees have a vital role in the atmospheric balance. Trees possess the ability to absorb much of the incoming energy. Gradually, trees that have absorbed energy submerge beneath the ground and turn into coal. Mankind is presently consuming unprecedented amounts of energy. Instead of storing the energy, like nature, we are releasing it into the atmosphere. Therefore, an international effort must be made to stop cutting down trees and to plant as many more as possible.
Energetic matter is in perpetual transition, and humans, who are also the product of energetic matter, similarly lack stability. The same holds true for our entire planetary system. Therefore, the Earth will always be subject to change, be it to our benefit or detriment.
In previous articles, I wrote on the creation and constant release of energetic matter and that mankind must learn to exploit phenomena such as earthquakes and hurricanes. Furthermore, we must reduce our reliance on energy sources such as coal and oil, which the Earth has already managed to store. We must reach the point in which these energy supplies are only utilized for medications and other critical needs. The continuity of the human race will depend on our ability to adapt to these changes and maintain the balance between water, vegetation, and energy.
by NorthernPesos » Sat Jan 25, 2025 8:48 am
Of the 4 States wrote:Barbecue people:
by Fjolmidlum » Sat Jan 25, 2025 8:52 am
by NorthernPesos » Sat Jan 25, 2025 8:53 am
"At a symposium of the Union of Geodesy and geophysics, Dr. Pyyotor Shoumsky reported that the south polar ice cap was growing at a minimum rate of 293 cubic miles of ice annually. To put that number in perspective, Lake Erie contains only 109 cubic miles of water. Thus, a volume of ice forms on top of the existing ice at Antarctica each year which is almost three times the volume of water in Lake Erie!" (Expanded Discussion of The HAB Theory, Gershom Gale, Expanded Discussion on the HAB Theory.)
5,903,970 views Mar 4, 2013
NOTE: Statements in this talk have been challenged by other scientists working in this field. Read more here: https://blog.ted.com/allan-savorys-ho...
"Desertification is a fancy word for land that is turning to desert," begins Allan Savory in this quietly powerful talk. And terrifyingly, it's happening to about two-thirds of the world's grasslands, accelerating climate change and causing traditional grazing societies to descend into social chaos. Savory has devoted his life to stopping it. He now believes -- and his work so far shows -- that a surprising factor can protect grasslands and even reclaim degraded land that was once desert.
TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes (or less). Look for talks on Technology, Entertainment and Design -- plus science, business, global issues, the arts and much more.
by NorthernPesos » Sat Jan 25, 2025 8:56 am
Fjolmidlum wrote:So, let me get this straight, Al Gore's carbon tax idea is wrong because he had a professor who might have wanted to link fiat currencies to the oil supply? I'm sold, this is irrefutable evidence that carbon tax is worthless.
No, this is just another really bizarre thread from you. A carbon tax isn't far enough, and I don't think one on its own would have much of an effect except on the consumer seeing as companies will continue to "drill, baby, drill" and use up those products no matter what given the profitability of oil, and they will just pass any potential hit to their profits to the consumers instead. The only way it could work is if it were coupled with very substantial investment in R&D for low-emission technologies, in which case it would act as an incentive for consumers to switch.
by Tinhampton » Sat Jan 25, 2025 8:58 am
NorthernPesos wrote:I can guess from your comment that you haven't listened to the documentary yet.
by NorthernPesos » Sat Jan 25, 2025 9:04 am
Tinhampton wrote:The irony about the other inherent assumption in the OP is that while the United States does not have a carbon tax, many European nations do. The PROVE IT Act has been a contentious but promising first step - and jurisdictions such as California and the RGGI (north-eastern states) have implemented their own cap-and-trade schemes - but there is no federal carbon tax, nor is there likely to be one in the next five years.
In the short and medium term, carbon taxes can raise revenue for rebates, social security, and Just Transition measures. In the long term, as Net Zero is accomplished worldwide (which I fully believe will happen within the next 50-60 years) and CO2 emissions decrease even beyond that, they become gimmicky enough to have no reasonable value or use.NorthernPesos wrote:I can guess from your comment that you haven't listened to the documentary yet.
This thread was posted fifteen minutes ago. You can't reasonably expect people to watch a two-hour documentary in fifteen minutes nor to necessarily have any prior knowledge of said documentary.
The carbon tax has plagued the Liberals politically. Research says that's not surprising
Visibility of costs detracts from popularity, paper suggests
[IMG]
Nojoud Al Mallees · The Canadian Press · Posted: Jun 01, 2024 10:45 AM EDT | Last Updated: June 1
It was supposed to do the heavy lifting for Canada's greenhouse gas emissions targets.
And it was supposed to remain a major part of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's legacy, both at home and abroad — part of an urgent global push to fight climate change.
But instead of fulfilling those Liberal hopes, carbon pricing has become a significant political liability.
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre's crusade against the consumer carbon price and his promise to "axe the tax" should he win the next election has resonated with many Canadians amidst an affordability crisis.
The Tory leader has blamed the climate policy for driving up the cost of food and fuel, while dismissing or ignoring its purported benefits, including consumer rebates.
The government has struggled to respond to the Conservatives' attacks, despite the carbon price enjoying widespread support among economists.
Did the Liberals drop the ball?
Or was the policy always destined for failure?
Research suggests the Liberals may be fighting a losing battle, and some experts are urging policymakers to look for alternative policies to lower emissions, warning the threat of climate change is too dire to delay action.
"It's very hard to find places with high, economy-wide carbon prices that have not generated significant political backlash," said Matto Mildenberger, an assistant professor of political science at the University of California Santa Barbara.
"That leads political scientists like myself to have real reservations about how viable carbon pricing is as a short-term strategy to confront the climate crisis."
Political messaging matters, study suggests
Consumers pay the cost of carbon pricing upfront in a very visible way, Mildenberger said. Its benefits are only enjoyed in the long run.
The federal government's Canada Carbon Rebate is designed to compensate voters for the financial burden. According to the parliamentary budget officer, eight out of 10 families receive more in rebates than they pay in carbon taxes.
But Mildenberger's research suggests the rebate is not as effective in shoring up public support as Liberals would hope.
One study analyzing public support for carbon pricing in Canada and Switzerland found people don't know about the rebates they're getting and tend to underestimate their value.
Another looked at the effect of rebates on public support for a carbon tax in the U.S. and Switzerland and found there was ultimately little impact.
"Our results indicate that, absent political messaging, rebates increase public support for carbon taxes in both countries by building support among lower income groups," the 2022 paper said.
"However, policy is always politicized, and when respondents are exposed to political messages about carbon pricing the effects associated with rebates are dampened or eliminated."
by NorthernPesos » Sat Jan 25, 2025 9:08 am
Canada is a big country filled with lots of opinions. It’s tough to talk about which hockey team you should cheer for without voices being raised, let alone getting into politics.
When a vast majority of Canadians think the same way on something, it’s a good idea for the government to stop and listen.
A new poll conducted by Leger shows that seven-in-10 Canadians want farmers to get an exemption on the carbon tax for natural gas and propane.
That means members of Parliament need to listen to Canadians and pass Bill C-234, a proposed piece of legislation that gives farmers this exact exemption.
Currently, the federal government already exempts the carbon tax from gasoline and diesel used on farms. And this bill simply extends that same carbon tax exemption to natural gas and propane.
The new national poll shows there is support for farmers across the country – Canadians want the carbon tax scrapped on farms.
Albertans leads the way with 76 per cent of them supporting giving a break to farmers, but other parts of the country aren’t far behind. British Columbians are 72 per cent in favour of the relief and even 68 per cent of people in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces support the exemption.
Canadians understand that just like the carbon tax costs them big money to fuel up their cars and heat their homes, it also costs farmers, but on a much larger scale. Without any relief, the carbon tax on natural gas and propane will cost farmers almost $1 billion by 2030, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer.
That’s a lot of money that farmers are paying on their bills every month and it also hurts their competitiveness because farmers in the United States aren’t paying a carbon tax. Plus, if farmers aren’t paying millions of dollars every year in the carbon tax, it’s likely to help the rest of out with prices at the grocery store.
And passing bill C-234 is something farm groups have already been calling for. The Agriculture Carbon Alliance is a coalition of 15 farm associations is pushing the federal government to pass the bill and provide relief to farmers.
That’s because individual farmers are paying up to thousands of dollars every month in the carbon tax. The average livestock farmer can expect a $726 carbon tax bill every month, while crop farmers can look forward to a $2,024 bill according to the ACA.
Greenhouses are the worst off, with an average $17,173 carbon tax bill. In some cases, up to 40 per cent of a farmers energy cost is just carbon tax.
This new poll and the huge carbon tax bills for Canadian farmers should be a wake-up call for politicians in Ottawa to stop sitting on their hands and get farmers some relief, because this legislation has been through the wringer at this point.
Bill C-234 was originally introduced more than two years ago and it finally passed the House in March 2023, where it got unanimous support from the Conservatives, Bloc, NDP and Greens. Three Liberal MPs even voted for it.
But then it got to the Senate.
Unelected Senators amended the bill and got rid of much of the relief for farmers. They removed the exemptions for heating barns and decided that the relief should end after three years. The bill in its current form would still see farmers paying $910 million in the carbon tax by 2030, according to the PBO.
Now Bill C-234 is back in the House and MPs need to reject the amendments from the Senate and pass the bill in its original form.
It’s what Canadians want.
It’s time for Ottawa to start listening to Canadians and stop charging farmers carbon taxes that make all of our lives more expensive.
by Fjolmidlum » Sat Jan 25, 2025 9:13 am
NorthernPesos wrote:*snip*
NorthernPesos wrote:Fjolmidlum wrote:So, let me get this straight, Al Gore's carbon tax idea is wrong because he had a professor who might have wanted to link fiat currencies to the oil supply? I'm sold, this is irrefutable evidence that carbon tax is worthless.
No, this is just another really bizarre thread from you. A carbon tax isn't far enough, and I don't think one on its own would have much of an effect except on the consumer seeing as companies will continue to "drill, baby, drill" and use up those products no matter what given the profitability of oil, and they will just pass any potential hit to their profits to the consumers instead. The only way it could work is if it were coupled with very substantial investment in R&D for low-emission technologies, in which case it would act as an incentive for consumers to switch.
I can guess from your comment that you haven't listened to the documentary yet. When you do you will be far less sold on what Mr. Al Gore is being manipulated into doing and why his theory was grabbed and put out through BigMedia and BigEducation and BigGovernment all of which are influended by BigOil.
In order to understand what is really happening you must understand the probable MOTIVES!
by NorthernPesos » Sat Jan 25, 2025 9:19 am
Fjolmidlum wrote:NorthernPesos wrote:*snip*
It's well known that the southern icecaps sometimes grow, but that claim is misleading as they typically aren't, and they definitely aren't doing it consistently at that rate. Even if they did, however, the problem would that this doesn't account for all the melting of northern ice caps. Because of that effect, we have lost over 200,000 square kilometers of northern ice in the last 40 years, or the surface area of 8 Lake Eries since we're using that as a metric. With that said, the antarctic ice sheets are generally being lost at a rate of 109 cubic kilometers yearly and the northern sheets are generally being lost at a rate of 250 cubic kilometers yearly as well, or a total of 75% of the volume of Lake Erie every year since we're using that as a metric.NorthernPesos wrote:
I can guess from your comment that you haven't listened to the documentary yet. When you do you will be far less sold on what Mr. Al Gore is being manipulated into doing and why his theory was grabbed and put out through BigMedia and BigEducation and BigGovernment all of which are influended by BigOil.
In order to understand what is really happening you must understand the probable MOTIVES!
Yeah, I'm not watching a documentary just to engage with you, and you shouldn't expect anybody to do so. Even if we assume Al Gore is secretly in bed with Big Oil simply because he had a professor who might have wanted an oil based currency, which is absurd given where all the oil lobbying money lobbying actually goes and that Al Gore and his professors are different people, this does not make his ideas incorrect per se.
"Let us consider Antarctica for a moment.
We have already seen that it is big. It has a land area of 5.5
million square miles, and is presently covered by something in excess
of seven million cubic miles of ice weighing an estimated 19
quadrillion tons (19 followed by 15 zeros). What worries the
theorists of earth-crust displacement is that this vast ice-cap is
remorselessly increasing in size and weight:'at the rate of 293 cubic
miles of ice each year--almost as much as if Lake Ontario were frozen
solidly annually and added to it.(Graham Hancock, Fingerprints of
the Gods, page 480).
by Fjolmidlum » Sat Jan 25, 2025 9:23 am
NorthernPesos wrote:*snip*
by NorthernPesos » Sat Jan 25, 2025 9:31 am
Fjolmidlum wrote:NorthernPesos wrote:*snip*
I already showed you contradictory evidence. Without knowing the methodology behind the source you quoted, I can't point out to you exactly how the conclusion they drew is flawed, but it is contradictory to the actual best evidence I am aware of by orders of magnitude. All I can say is that you should stop believing everybody with a post-nominal that says something you like, and you should definitely stop believing them over the more reliable evidence that exists out there. If you just want to believe that sea level rise doesn't matter, that's your prerogative not mine.
About
The Sorek desalination plant is one of a kind and the largest seawater desalination plant operating with 16’’ elements in a unique vertical arrangement.
It provides potable water for millions of people, comprising 20% of the municipal water demand in Israel, thus greatly contributing to the country’s water system resilience (while minimizing the environmental impact).
In 2018 IDE sold Sorek 1 desalination plant to Dan Capital. The sale was required under a deal agreed by IDE with antitrust (competition) authorities allowing IDE to bid on a BOT tender for a second SWRO desalination plant at Soreq.
Capacity: 640,000 m³/day
Technology: Reverse Osmosis (RO)
Water Source: Seawater
Contract type: BOT For 25 years
Usage: Potable Water
Location: Rishon Le Zion, Israel
Customer: Israel Water Authority
Commissioning date: 2013
by Emotional Support Crocodile » Sat Jan 25, 2025 9:31 am
by NorthernPesos » Sat Jan 25, 2025 9:36 am
Emotional Support Crocodile wrote:Did Mister Rogers cause the Kennedy assassinations?
by Fjolmidlum » Sat Jan 25, 2025 9:43 am
NorthernPesos wrote:*snip*
by Floofybit » Sat Jan 25, 2025 9:44 am
by Rusozak » Sat Jan 25, 2025 9:47 am
by NorthernPesos » Sat Jan 25, 2025 10:05 am
Floofybit wrote:No, oceans don't care about taxes
Carl Cantrell.
"So how is our problem of continental drying causing global warming? It all has to do with vegetation and sunlight. When sun light hits a plant, it causes a process which we call photosynthesis where the energy from the sun light creates oxygen for us to breathe, water for us to drink, and is stored as sugar for plants and animals to use. When the same sun light hits the soil, all of its energy turns into heat and is radiated back into the atmosphere.. ."
"Therefore, the less vegetation you have on the planet, the more sunlight is being turned into heat and the warmer the planet becomes...."
"Just take a look at any satellite picture of the earth showing heat and you will see that our deserts are the warmest spots on the planet by far. More heat is being generated by just one of the top four or five deserts than by all of our cities combined.... "
"The truth is that you can do more to decrease global warming by just reducing the average temperature for the Sahara Desert by one or two degrees than if we humans completely quit using fossil fuels and returned to the cave…."
"So, how would you start working to resolve this problem? Easy, cool the deserts and get some vegetation growing on them as soon as possible. But the method is much more complex than that. You have to use the prevailing trade winds in relation to the deserts to get the best results as quickly as possible and it will be extremely expensive…."
"Then we build desalination plants along the coast near these water sheds and pipe water to the tops or ridges of the water sheds…"
"We need to start working on this as soon as possible because, if the planet reaches a point to where it is warming faster than our technology can possibly stop or reverse this warming trend, then our planet is lost and all life will cease to exist on this planet within a relatively short period of time. We will need to start with the largest and hottest deserts because cooling them will have the greatest benefit in the least time (Global Warming II by biologist Carl Cantrell)."
by The Greater Ohio Valley » Sat Jan 25, 2025 10:08 am
by Floofybit » Sat Jan 25, 2025 10:10 am
NorthernPesos wrote:Floofybit wrote:No, oceans don't care about taxes
Exactly, it must be through something more direct that we begin to decrease the threat of rising ocean levels. I really like the simple but logical approach by New Mexico biologist and bicycling coach Carl Cantrell.Carl Cantrell.
"So how is our problem of continental drying causing global warming? It all has to do with vegetation and sunlight. When sun light hits a plant, it causes a process which we call photosynthesis where the energy from the sun light creates oxygen for us to breathe, water for us to drink, and is stored as sugar for plants and animals to use. When the same sun light hits the soil, all of its energy turns into heat and is radiated back into the atmosphere.. ."
"Therefore, the less vegetation you have on the planet, the more sunlight is being turned into heat and the warmer the planet becomes...."
"Just take a look at any satellite picture of the earth showing heat and you will see that our deserts are the warmest spots on the planet by far. More heat is being generated by just one of the top four or five deserts than by all of our cities combined.... "
"The truth is that you can do more to decrease global warming by just reducing the average temperature for the Sahara Desert by one or two degrees than if we humans completely quit using fossil fuels and returned to the cave…."
"So, how would you start working to resolve this problem? Easy, cool the deserts and get some vegetation growing on them as soon as possible. But the method is much more complex than that. You have to use the prevailing trade winds in relation to the deserts to get the best results as quickly as possible and it will be extremely expensive…."
"Then we build desalination plants along the coast near these water sheds and pipe water to the tops or ridges of the water sheds…"
"We need to start working on this as soon as possible because, if the planet reaches a point to where it is warming faster than our technology can possibly stop or reverse this warming trend, then our planet is lost and all life will cease to exist on this planet within a relatively short period of time. We will need to start with the largest and hottest deserts because cooling them will have the greatest benefit in the least time (Global Warming II by biologist Carl Cantrell)."
by NorthernPesos » Sat Jan 25, 2025 10:28 am
Rusozak wrote:Nothing will stop it. The chance to stop it passed decades ago. Everyone waited until we started to feel the effects of climate change to consider thinking about doing something to prevent climate change and we're all fucked as a result. Buckle up.
"And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do." (Genesis 11)
Book 005, Number 2208:
"Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (way peace be upon him) as saying: The Last Hour will not come before wealth becomes abundant and overflowing, so much so that a man takes Zakat out of his property and cannot find anyone to accept it from him and till the land of Arabia becomes meadows and rivers."
SAHIH MUSLIM, BOOK 25: The Book on General Behaviour (Kitab Al-Adab)
by NorthernPesos » Sat Jan 25, 2025 10:29 am
The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:No, but arresting all the billionaires has a chance to.
by Corporate Collective Salvation » Sat Jan 25, 2025 10:32 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: A m e n r i a, Adamede, Breinot, Eahland, Epitome Res Publica, Federation of Great Lake States, Google [Bot], Kasdados, Kyete, New haven america, Shrillland, The Lazarene Republic, The Western European Commonwealth, Washington Resistance Army
Advertisement