Fossil fuels have helped the environment and will continue to be part of the clean and sustainable energy mix

[Anonymous]

unconventional oil and natural gas.



I'm read a book by Marc Jacard, a professor of sustainable energy in the School of Resource and Environmental Management at Simon Fraser University, Vancouver about that shows how slow renewable(not non renewable) energy has played a part in environmental improvements and human development improvements and will continue to do so for at least another century and likely many more beyond that.



By Matthew Lau of Sun News Media



The term "clean energy" is generally used to refer to energy from certain sources, like wind, solar and hydro. But what about fossil fuels? Does the use of fossil fuels make the environment cleaner or dirtier? The answer depends on who you ask.



If you ask federal Environment Minister Catherine Mckenna (who recently posted and since deleted an online video saying, "We've learned in the House of Commons, if you repeat it, if you say it louder, if that is your talking point, people will totally believe it"), the answer might well be: FOSSIL FUELS ARE BAD, FOSSIL FUELS ARE BAD, FOSSIL FUELS ARE BAD.



But people who give the matter some thought might have a greater appreciation for how fossil fuels have made the environment cleaner and safer for humans. Indeed, affordable sources of modern energy, including from fossil fuels, are essential to the standards of living and environmental cleanliness enjoyed by just about everybody in the developed world.



One example of fossil fuel use that is often maligned for causing environmental damage is the internal combustion engine. But far from increasing pollution, the invention and widespread use of automobiles nearly a century ago significantly cleaned cities by ridding the streets of horses and manure that attracted flies and disease.



Importantly, thanks to technological improvements, the air in major Canadian cities has actually become cleaner over the past four decades even as the number of cars on the road went way up. To be sure, there could be some environmental benefits from people switching to electric vehicles. However, history shows that the rise of gas-powered automobiles cleaned cities while improving the quality of life for ordinary people.



Another example of fossil fuels allegedly dirtying the environment: plastic products such as plastic bags, plastic straws, and plastic packaging. But consider the plastic grocery bag. People use these bags to pick up after their dogs and to line their garbage bins, which makes the environment cleaner. Plus, they are a helpful way to carry groceries, which itself is a good thing.



Disposable plastic bags also protect people from hazardous bacteria in the environment. By contrast, studies find that coliform bacteria is often detected in reusable grocery bags, which are often not washed frequently enough. Similarly to plastic bags, plastic food wrap and plastic packaging also help keep food cleaner — as well as fresher and tastier.



The examples of plastic products making the world cleaner are endless. Plastic window screens keep homes clean from insects. Mops, brooms, and vacuum cleaners are made in part by plastic. A more obscure example of plastic products improving hygiene was recently highlighted on the economics blog Cafe Hayek: a plastic device called "Splash Hog" that keeps men cleaner by reducing the splash-back in urinals.



On a larger scale, fossil fuels have had a profound positive environmental impact. As author Alex Epstein has written, "It is only thanks to cheap, plentiful, reliable energy that we live in an environment where the water we drink and the food we eat will not make us sick" and where we are more resilient to an often hostile climate.



Indeed, economic development fuelled in large part by fossil fuels has contributed to a 98% decline in the past century in the global mortality rate from extreme weather events. The evidence suggests that, far from being an environmental hazard, fossil fuel use has made the environment cleaner and safer for humans.

[Anonymous]

You posted these two threads twice Seoul.

[Anonymous]

You posted these two threads twice Seoul.

Yes, I know.

[JOE]

Fossil fuels should gradually be phased out as a fuel source & used strictly for manufacturing instead as recyclable plastics.



That would make a lot mire sense.



Burning up what precious oil we have left is the equivalent of using gold to make nuts & bolts for manufacturing or using our finest woods for kindling. Its a waste of course.



In the scheme of things we don't have that much oil left to waste.



Therefore renewable energy sources make a lot more sense invtge long run.

[Anonymous]

Fossil fuels should gradually be phased out as a fuel source & used strictly for manufacturing instead as recyclable plastics.



That would make a lot mire sense.



Burning up what precious oil we have left is the equivalent of using gold to make nuts & bolts for manufacturing or using our finest woods for kindling. Its a waste of course.



In the scheme of things we don't have that much oil left to waste.



Therefore renewable energy sources make a lot more sense invtge long run.

I know I'll regret asking this, but how would using up maybe one hundred years of rare earth metals for energy, heat, and electricity make more sense than the one thousand years of all fossil fuels we have left possibly make more sense?



Not to mention the fact that it would put us at the mercy of China.

[Anonymous]

Right you are Fash. Of all resources we have, coal, various kinds of crude oil and natural gas have the best supply. All of which can be used for fuels, and industrial purposes.



M. King Hubbert, the person synomymous with "peak oil" predicted oil production would have been in decline nearly fifty years ago. His predictions did not take into account new exploratory technology for conventional oil and the development of unconventional oil. And we are just getting started. Almost everywhere soil exists will be capable of producing some sort of fossil fuels. We will play around with solar for a while, but it will never be anything more than a hobby form of energy to produce electricity only.  For security, environmental and unsustainability reasons, it can't replace anything to support ten billion people by the middle of the century. Wind is an expensive, bird killing waste of land that adds to the problem of climate change. Advanced development requires fossil fuels and that won't change. What will is how we make improvements in efficiencies.

[JOE]

Right you are Fash. Of all resources we have, coal, various kinds of crude oil and natural gas have the best supply. All of which can be used for fuels, and industrial purposes.



M. King Hubbert, the person synomymous with "peak oil" predicted oil production would have been in decline nearly fifty years ago. His predictions did not take into account new exploratory technology for conventional oil and the development of unconventional oil. And we are just getting started. Almost everywhere soil exists will be capable of producing some sort of fossil fuels. We will play around with solar for a while, but it will never be anything more than a hobby form of energy to produce electricity only.  For security, environmental and unsustainability reasons, it can't replace anything to support ten billion people by the middle of the century. Wind is an expensive, bird killing waste of land that adds to the problem of climate change. Advanced development requires fossil fuels and that won't change. What will is how we make improvements in efficiencies.

And do you honestly think this planet can support 10 billion people or more and beyond?



We're at a breaking point with 7 billion now.



Twice as many people also breeds twice ad many refugees, twice as many terrorists, crazy people & twice as much pollution, seoulbro. And half as many resources & arable land to support them.  You people on the pro business Right are just as bad as naive SJW idealists on the Left. Thinking y'all can have your cake & eat it.

[cc]

Speaking of "fossil"

[Anonymous]

Somebody tell the geriatric virgin that it's the pro business assholes like the Rockefellers who are trying to make fuel, home heating and electricity more expensive for consumers. They are the ones who are funneling money to tax exempt lobby groups who want to send Canadian jobs to foreign countries like the US. They are the ones who want carbon taxes right along with big oil and big manufacturing. The Trudeau government gave $12 million in carbon tax revenue to Galen Weston to retrofit freezers.



The more oil and gas a country uses, the higher it's human development and the better it's environment.

Dennis Anderson argues in the UN Development Programme's Energy and Economic Prosperity, modern, abundant energy can improve living standards of billions of people, especially in the developing world, who lack access to services or whose consumption levels are far below those in industrialized countries.



"No country has been able to raise per capita incomes from low levels without increasing its commercial energy use."



Anderson notes that no country has been able to raise per capita incomes from low levels without increasing its commercial energy use

Developing countries that switch from burning wood and peat for heat and cooking to natural gas reduce pollution and have a cheaper more sustainable source for their everyday needs.

[Anonymous]

Somebody tell the geriatric virgin that it's the pro business assholes like the Rockefellers who are trying to make fuel, home heating and electricity more expensive for consumers. They are the ones who are funneling money to tax exempt lobby groups who want to send Canadian jobs to foreign countries like the US. They are the ones who want carbon taxes right along with big oil and big manufacturing. The Trudeau government gave $12 million in carbon tax revenue to Galen Weston to retrofit freezers.



The more oil and gas a country uses, the higher it's human development and the better it's environment.

Dennis Anderson argues in the UN Development Programme's Energy and Economic Prosperity, modern, abundant energy can improve living standards of billions of people, especially in the developing world, who lack access to services or whose consumption levels are far below those in industrialized countries.



"No country has been able to raise per capita incomes from low levels without increasing its commercial energy use."



Anderson notes that no country has been able to raise per capita incomes from low levels without increasing its commercial energy use

Developing countries that switch from burning wood and peat for heat and cooking to natural gas reduce pollution and have a cheaper more sustainable source for their everyday needs.

Prog money has no interest in human development or the environment. It's all about control with them. The more money they take from us, the more control they have. They brainwash us into believing a tax hike is like a thermostat that regulates the temperature and like sheeple, we follow the pricks.

[Anonymous]

Of all the natural resources we possess, fossil fuels are the most abundant. Don't get me wrong, electrification will continue to grow in the developing world, but it won't be powered by solar panels which require rare earth metals which one country in the world has a near monopoly on. If scientists, engineers, economists and politicians actually believed global warming was an existential threat, than why hasn't an emissions capture system been developed for internal combustion engines. If the same people walked the talk on climate change. why have they not developed a way of producing cement and steel without releasing emissions, since cent and steel produce a lot more C02 than the world's fleet of vehicles.



These are real solutions, that don't require a trillion dollars of taxpayer money.



From Sun News Media



OIL IS STILL KING

Heavy reliance on fossil fuels remains despite push for alternative energy



Back in the 1980s, do you know what percentage of the world's energy needs were supplied by fossil fuels?



According to the International Energy Agency, three and four decades ago 81 per cent of the world's energy came from fossil fuels.



Do you know what the percentage is today?



After nearly a trillion dollars (that's $1,000,000,000,000) has been spent worldwide, mostly by developed nations' taxpayers, on alternate energy — solar panels, wind farms, biofuels — the amount of energy supplied by fossil fuels is ... wait for it ... 81 per cent.



Admittedly, this masks the growth of energy consumption.



As countries such as China and India have industrialized, a lot more energy has been consumed each year than in the 1980s.



There is a lot of alternate energy being used. But the point is we are just as reliant on oil, gas and coal as we always have been.



The world is not transitioning to a carbon-free future, except for our Goody Two-shoes Liberal government.



[size=150]Alternate energy sources have advanced as far as they have only because of "green" politicians' willingness to tax the bejeebers out of ordinary citizens to fund the eco-fantasy of largescale, emissions-free power.

[/size]

Speaking at an alternative energy conference in Vancouver last week, [size=150]International Energy Agency executive director Fatih Birol also said that in the coming decade and a half, about two-thirds of the world's nuclear reactors are set to be decommissioned[/size] (if they are not overhauled).



[size=150]That would add four billion tonnes of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere if nuclear power were replaced by coal. And that would wipe out all of the emissions gains made by the huge public investment in "green" alternatives.

[/size]

Birol also thinks most governments and green-energy activists are barking up the wrong trees. For instance, e[size=150]lectric cars are unlikely to reverse the trend toward growing emissions. "Just two heavy industries — cement and steel — emit 50 per cent more greenhouse gases than all the cars of the world put together."[/size]



Yet shutting down the cement and steel industries would be economically and socially suicidal.



That would be the end of hospital and bridge construction, high-rise apartments, office buildings, piers and hundreds of thousands of infrastructure projects.



No politician — not even our green-as-an-elf prime minister, Justin Trudeau — is willing to go that far. Instead, [size=150]most leaders only propose feel-good, do-nothing solutions such as carbon taxes.[/size]



Over the 10 years the Ontario Liberals pumped money into its "green" energy plan, it spent nearly $60 billion in taxpayers' money, ran up record debt, more than doubled the cost of electricity, drove manufacturing jobs out of the country and in the end had nothing to show for it emissions-wise.



Nearly the end of their term, the Alberta New Democrats liked to point to this province's reduced emissions as proof their multi-billion-dollar Climate Leadership Plan was working.



Really!? Was Alberta producing fewer emissions because the Notley government's taxes, subsidies and regulations encouraged people to consume less?



Or [size=150]were the lower emissions the result of the NDP driving our economy into the ground, which meant there were fewer emissions because more businesses were going under, fewer people were working[/size] and fewer resources being extracted?



[size=150]If we shut-in our oil and oilsands in Canada (as the federal Liberals seem determined to do), it will make no mark on the global climate.[/size]



Canada produces only 1.6 per cent of worldwide emissions to begin with, and our energy sector is responsible for less than one-fifth of one per cent.



No other country is playing Boy Scout and shutting down its oil industry the way Canada is.



But we have driven away $100 billion in new investment in the past two years and with that, about $7 billion in federal taxes alone.

[Anonymous]

This is about the pollution from the fashion industry that doesn't get much attention.

And they present some amazing facts:



-  Nearly 70 million barrels of oil are used each year to make the world's polyester fiber, which is now the most commonly used fiber in our clothing. But it takes more than 200 years to decompose.



- More than 150 billion garments are produced annually, enough to provide 20 new garments to every person on the planet, every year.



- Americans throw away about 70 lbs of clothing per person every year.



- Fast fashion garments, which we wear less than 5 times and keep for 35 days, produce over 400% more carbon emissions per item per year than garments worn 50 times and kept for a full year.



- Cheap synthetic fibers also emit gasses like N2O, which is 300 times more damaging than CO2.



- Over 70 million trees are logged every year and turned into fabrics like rayon, viscose, modal and lyocell.



- Cotton is the world's single largest pesticide-consuming crop, using 24% of all insecticides and 11% of all pesticides globally, adversely affecting soil and water.



- Plastic microfibers shed from our synthetic clothing into the water supply account for 85% of the human-made material found along ocean shores, threatening marine wildlife and ending up in our food supply.



- The fashion industry is the second biggest polluter of freshwater resources on the planet after agrreiculture.



- A quarter of the chemicals produced in the world are used in textiles.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/12/03/making-climate-change-fashionable-the-garment-industry-takes-on-global-warming/#247a930379e4">https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca ... 7a930379e4">https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/12/03/making-climate-change-fashionable-the-garment-industry-takes-on-global-warming/#247a930379e4

[Anonymous]

This is about the pollution from the fashion industry that doesn't get much attention.

And they present some amazing facts:



-  Nearly 70 million barrels of oil are used each year to make the world's polyester fiber, which is now the most commonly used fiber in our clothing. But it takes more than 200 years to decompose.



- More than 150 billion garments are produced annually, enough to provide 20 new garments to every person on the planet, every year.



- Americans throw away about 70 lbs of clothing per person every year.



- Fast fashion garments, which we wear less than 5 times and keep for 35 days, produce over 400% more carbon emissions per item per year than garments worn 50 times and kept for a full year.



- Cheap synthetic fibers also emit gasses like N2O, which is 300 times more damaging than CO2.



- Over 70 million trees are logged every year and turned into fabrics like rayon, viscose, modal and lyocell.



- Cotton is the world's single largest pesticide-consuming crop, using 24% of all insecticides and 11% of all pesticides globally, adversely affecting soil and water.



- Plastic microfibers shed from our synthetic clothing into the water supply account for 85% of the human-made material found along ocean shores, threatening marine wildlife and ending up in our food supply.



- The fashion industry is the second biggest polluter of freshwater resources on the planet after agrreiculture.



- A quarter of the chemicals produced in the world are used in textiles.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/12/03/making-climate-change-fashionable-the-garment-industry-takes-on-global-warming/#247a930379e4">https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca ... 7a930379e4">https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/12/03/making-climate-change-fashionable-the-garment-industry-takes-on-global-warming/#247a930379e4

I know all about this IHJ..



My uncle managed a factory in mainland China..



Zetsu too would know how polluting the garment industry is.

[Bricktop]

Not to mention the highly toxic dyes, plastics and elastic components.



Fashionista is a polluter!!!

[Bricktop]

- Americans throw away about 70 lbs of clothing per person every year.

Er...would you happen to know where?? ac_blush