Ontario to spend $7-billion on sweeping climate change plan

[scuro2]

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=280

Interestingly the ICSC is run by Executive Director: Tom Harris, B. Eng., M. Eng. (Mech., thermofluids), Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Phone: 613-728-9200.
He left his phone # on the website, so LIF and MB2 if you have a phone plan give him a call. He's looking for new members and the guy sounds smart, Al Gore wants nothing to do with him apparently!!!!

 

MB2...you can also register as a climate scientist who disagrees. May be you could drop that percentage to 96%!!!
"If you are a someone who has professionally studied the causes of climate change and you would like to add your name to the below list of scientists who endorse The Register, please click here. http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=346&Itemid=97

Edited June 5, 2016 by scuro2

[dave524]

Co founder of Greenpeace shows some logic with regard to the cause of climate change, I always identified that group with the environment scammers.

 

[glen]

That sums it up pretty good. Thank you.

 

The measure of man caused global climate change and the facts to back it I have yet to see.

[Dutch01]

Regardless of whether climate change is man made, or even real at all, we need to get off of fossil fuels. We are pumping poison into the air we breath.

 

We have the capability to move to an air pollution free transportation system, but we maintain the status quo to protect vested interests (big oil and the auto industry). It's time for change, even if it requires a push, even if it stings a little.

 

In a related news story, the four major political parties in Norway (currently the world's 15 ranked oil producer) recently agreed to develop a plan to have zero sales of new combustion engine cars after 2025. This is the kind of announcement that spurs research and development. Good for them.

Edited June 7, 2016 by Dutch01

[Dara]

Regardless of whether climate change is man made, or even real at all, we need to get off of fossil fuels. We are pumping poison into the air we breath.

 

We have the capability to move to an air pollution free transportation system, but we maintain the status quo to protect vested interests (big oil and the auto industry). It's time for change, even if it requires a push, even if it stings a little.

 

In a related news story, the four major political parties in Norway (currently the world's 15 ranked oil producer) recently agreed to develop a plan to have zero sales of new combustion engine cars after 2025. This is the kind of announcement that spurs research and development. Good for them.

 

 

What system would that be Dutch

[DRIFTER_016]

 

 

What system would that be Dutch

 

[Dutch01]

 

Electric vehicles.

[DRIFTER_016]

Electric vehicles.

 

Unless they are being charged by sun or wind they are not emissions free.

[Dutch01]

You forgot nuclear and hydro-electric.

 

Also, it's easier to control emissions on a few thousand power plants than on billions of cars.

 

Next argument?

[aplumma]

No argument.... go ahead and get er done.

 

 

 

Art

[Headhunter]

It'll be interesting to see what an electric outboard will look like in 20 years...

HH

[Dutch01]

No argument.... go ahead and get er done.

 

 

 

Art

My time to change the world has passed, at least directly. Hoping to inspire the youth in my life to take up the torch.

[scuro2]

[EC1]

It's really sad how some Canadians are resisting to believe that they need change to their lifestyles and saying that Canadians aren't part of the problem. An easy solution would just be to not have kids, use up what's left of the natural resources and say good night to the world.

 

We say we don't need to be a leader in the solution because we aren't a big problem anyway, but how's this? Can we finally follow the big boys and at least try to destroy the planet a little slower?

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-07/china-approves-over-15-billion-of-green-debt-in-pollution-fight

[Dara]

You forgot nuclear and hydro-electric.

 

Also, it's easier to control emissions on a few thousand power plants than on billions of cars.

 

Next argument?

Nuclear is at maximum capacity, hydro is close to maximum capacity.

These 2 account for 85% of generating capacity.

 

There are no additional sources for Hydro except for tiny little rivers that do more harm to the environment than help.

As far as I know we are not building any new nuclear plants.

 

Where will we get the electricity to power these billions, or even millions of cars

 

https://www.cns-snc.ca/media/ontarioelectricity/ontarioelectricity.html

[ketchenany]

You will find out today! Almost evry one has read it , me too!

[Dutch01]

Nuclear is at maximum capacity, hydro is close to maximum capacity.

These 2 account for 85% of generating capacity.

 

There are no additional sources for Hydro except for tiny little rivers that do more harm to the environment than help.

As far as I know we are not building any new nuclear plants.

 

Where will we get the electricity to power these billions, or even millions of cars

 

https://www.cns-snc.ca/media/ontarioelectricity/ontarioelectricity.html

There is nothing stopping us from building new nuclear plants except a lack of will on the part of our politicians.

 

Resources Canada calculates the current installed small hydro capacity at 3,400 MW, with an estimated potential of 15,000 MW. So we can expand hydroelectric capacity by a factor of 5.

 

We can generate electricity with LNG in the interim, which will generate less pollution than the cars it would power.

 

Options are there. Stopping looking for reasons to say no to a clean future.

Edited June 8, 2016 by Dutch01

[dave524]

All electric power has an environmental cost, some of us just have different views on which poison to swallow.

[Dutch01]

All electric power has an environmental cost, some of us just have different views on which poison to swallow.

Electric cars powered by clean generation may have a cost, but it's not as high as the cost of maintaining the status quo.

[Dara]

There is nothing stopping us from building new nuclear plants except a lack of will on the part of our politicians.

 

Resources Canada calculates the current installed small hydro capacity at 3,400 MW, with an estimated potential of 15,000 MW. So we can expand hydroelectric capacity by a factor of 5.

 

We can generate electricity with LNG in the interim, which will generate less pollution than the cars it would power.

 

Options are there. Stopping looking for reasons to say no to a clean future.

I'm all for it, I'm just looking at the cost.

 

We have to go nuclear...quit playing around with this wind and solar stuff.

 

And you are talking Canada for hydro, we are only talking Ontario and that is now very limited

cost per Mw is ridiculous as well as the pollution produced in building them would take 100 years to balance

 

And let some people have a say, my biggest problem is the My way or the Highway attitude of this government

They were elected to govern, not dictate

[MrSimon]

Science is the same as religion. You personally observe what little evidence you can with your own eyes .... then you get the opinions of a bunch of other people (both living and dead) ..... then you make some assumptions about the data, run some tests, and draw a conclusion. Or in most cases, you just choose to believe what someone else is saying.

 

Science and faith are identical.

 

Evolution vs. creation .... climate change vs. no climate change .... what's beyond outer space .... is there life after death?

 

We. Don't. Know. We are incapable of knowing. We simply do not have enough data. So, we guess. People tend to have really strong convictions in these areas and spout on about how 97% of scientists say this, or that, or whatever. All we're doing is choosing to follow the beliefs of others. That's not necessarily bad, but we should recognize and admit that our convictions are based in faith, and not fact.

 

Its interesting that throughout history scientists have been wrong more than they have been right. Its also interesting that some of the greatest breakthroughs in astronomy, mathematics, geography, and medicine have come when a few individuals went against what everyone else believed was proven fact.

 

How would you feel if the government created a bill that said, "97% of theologians believe the end times apocalypse is coming in the next 75 years, so we are going to tax the people $7 billion to build anti-demon weapons".

 

That's the EXACT same thing as saying they'll tax the people to fight against global warming. Maybe demons are coming, maybe they aren't. Maybe global warming and climate change exists and will destroy the planet, maybe it won't.

 

Now, with all that said, I strongly believe that there are plenty of observable and measurable real-time environmental impacts from pollution. I support the government using legislation and tax payer money to reduce pollution, both at the individual and corporate levels. But don't tell me I have to heat my house with expensive electric heaters because your precious scientists think my gas furnace is killing the planet.

[glen]

It's cold out.

 

Next they will say they are fighting global cooling.

[manitoubass2]

[Dutch01]

I'm all for it, I'm just looking at the cost.

 

We have to go nuclear...quit playing around with this wind and solar stuff.

 

And you are talking Canada for hydro, we are only talking Ontario and that is now very limited

cost per Mw is ridiculous as well as the pollution produced in building them would take 100 years to balance

 

And let some people have a say, my biggest problem is the My way or the Highway attitude of this government

They were elected to govern, not dictate

I agree with you, I believe nuclear is the way to go myself.

 

I also don't believe the corrupt Wynne government will do anything other than line the pockets of their cronies.

[Dutch01]

Science is the same as religion. You personally observe what little evidence you can with your own eyes .... then you get the opinions of a bunch of other people (both living and dead) ..... then you make some assumptions about the data, run some tests, and draw a conclusion. Or in most cases, you just choose to believe what someone else is saying.

 

Science and faith are identical.

 

Evolution vs. creation .... climate change vs. no climate change .... what's beyond outer space .... is there life after death?

 

We. Don't. Know. We are incapable of knowing. We simply do not have enough data. So, we guess. People tend to have really strong convictions in these areas and spout on about how 97% of scientists say this, or that, or whatever. All we're doing is choosing to follow the beliefs of others. That's not necessarily bad, but we should recognize and admit that our convictions are based in faith, and not fact.

 

Its interesting that throughout history scientists have been wrong more than they have been right. Its also interesting that some of the greatest breakthroughs in astronomy, mathematics, geography, and medicine have come when a few individuals went against what everyone else believed was proven fact.

 

How would you feel if the government created a bill that said, "97% of theologians believe the end times apocalypse is coming in the next 75 years, so we are going to tax the people $7 billion to build anti-demon weapons".

 

That's the EXACT same thing as saying they'll tax the people to fight against global warming. Maybe demons are coming, maybe they aren't. Maybe global warming and climate change exists and will destroy the planet, maybe it won't.

 

Now, with all that said, I strongly believe that there are plenty of observable and measurable real-time environmental impacts from pollution. I support the government using legislation and tax payer money to reduce pollution, both at the individual and corporate levels. But don't tell me I have to heat my house with expensive electric heaters because your precious scientists think my gas furnace is killing the planet.

Science and religion are NOT the same thing. Science is a set of conclusions based on the examination of all available evidence. Faith is belief in the absence of any evidence.

 

The theory of evolution is the result of evidence to support it (the fossil record makes clear that man is NOT 6,000 years old). Creationism has not one iota of evidence to support it.

Edited June 8, 2016 by Dutch01