Nearly 50 per cent of Canadians say they can’t afford meat
(ipolitics.ca)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (67)
sorted by:
Rising sea levels. The consequences do not lend themselves to short OmegaCanada posts. National Geographic summarizes things fairly well: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/sea-level-rise-1
Lightning starts them. Climate change produces more lightning. How well they burn is firmly linked to climate change.
https://blogs.egu.eu/divisions/np/2021/09/01/forest-fires/
This is the logical equivalent of saying "Raising the speed limit in cities to 100 miles per hour will allow people to get where they're going faster." True, but not a good idea given everything else it means.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/
Rising sea levels. Exactly. So what? Might sound like a flippant question but if one keeps asking ‘what if?’ And ‘so what?’ one can get further along. I looked at the article. The usual stuff about lowland flooding, people having to move inward, loss of habitat etc. Ok and? Whilst these things can be tragic if affecting humans or animals, the world has been through worse before. Humans and animals will move inland as before.
The seas will not boil and none of us are going to fry alive on the surface of the planet for the next 1000 years.
What about the opposite? During the ice age? Humans had to move south, many no doubt perished.
Greenland and Antarctica had no ice for long periods, much much warmer than it is now. Imagine Antarctica with no ice and it being not brutally cold/windy. I’m sure the penguins and polar bears would much prefer huddling together at -80c and walking for miles in the biting blizzards to have their young.
If ‘climate change’ and rising sea levels is so pressing and urgent (‘12 years’) why do so many politicians buy real estate on the coast?
Let’s say that there is more lighting. And it starts more fires, again, so what? We get more fires. The co2, nitrates and particulates released into the air wash down with rain and are re absorbed into nature.
If one is that concerned about things generating co2 then perhaps cutting co2 production with power generation would be a start?
Get the whole world to convert to nuclear power. Done. No more co2 production through power. Problem solved. Should offset cows farting no?
I agree that our species will probably survive. For a while, at least. I hope we evolve past this notion that we can do whatever we want.
That I posit everyone will support!
Odd question: what vehicle if any, do you operate for work or home?
Oh the highway thing. Yes. The faster traffic moves the better, if done safely. Speed doesn’t kill. It’s hitting other things that are going way slower or stationary that does. If speed killed, Germany’s autobahn would be a daily bloodbath.
The faster people can go, the faster they get off the roads and the faster someone else can get on and off. Slow traffic destroys productivity. The difference between cruise control a modern car at highway speeds (say 70mph) and fuel efficiency is hardly better than a car from 1994.
2020 Ford Taurus ecoboost 2.7/3.5) weighing about 4400lbs is about 16/24MPG. Ancient 1994 caddy fleetwood at 4400, Big primitive pushrod 5.7 350V8 18/26Mpg. Dodge caravan 2020 3.6 80-90mph for a few hours gets about 9litres/100km. At about 70mp it’s more or less same.
In any case, the US, Canadian and UK administrations have publicly stated they plan to outlaw sales of all new cars and light trucks by 2030, so you won’t have to worry about that. Better save up for a bicycle.
I see we're leaving day-to-day practicality behind
Nope.
Leaving practicality behind how.
I was 5 years off the new car/truck ban. Point still stands. Good luck getting around in high level Alberta at -45c if you need to buy a new car.
https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/canada-to-ban-sale-of-new-fuel-powered-cars-and-light-trucks-from-2035.
I feel you aren't reading carefully. The scenario was high speeds everywhere and you answer about highways. Then you say
and as proof you link to an article about future electric vehicle sales.
I think you don't want climate change to be disruptive, but that's part of the definition of a crisis.