Jump to content

Trudeau approved some pipelines!


Cardboard
 Share

Recommended Posts

Surprised he did something right... Or when someone is all bent on pleasing these extremist environmentalists, praising Castro and taxing more Canadians with a carbon tax. Maybe that he realized that the country is about to enter a free fall with housing and that we need some growth, jobs and less control from Americans over how we ship our energy?

 

Approved Enbridge Line 3 expansion (expected) and Kinder Morgan TransMountain (surprise) but, rejected Northern Gateway (expected). Not yet enough but, a start.

 

Cardboard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said! So far he has been a terrible PM who cannot keep his word. 

 

Surprised he did something right... Or when someone is all bent on pleasing these extremist environmentalists, praising Castro and taxing more Canadians with a carbon tax. Maybe that he realized that the country is about to enter a free fall with housing and that we need some growth, jobs and less control from Americans over how we ship our energy?

 

Approved Enbridge Line 3 expansion (expected) and Kinder Morgan TransMountain (surprise) but, rejected Northern Gateway (expected). Not yet enough but, a start.

 

Cardboard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said! So far he has been a terrible PM who cannot keep his word. 

 

Surprised he did something right... Or when someone is all bent on pleasing these extremist environmentalists, praising Castro and taxing more Canadians with a carbon tax. Maybe that he realized that the country is about to enter a free fall with housing and that we need some growth, jobs and less control from Americans over how we ship our energy?

 

Approved Enbridge Line 3 expansion (expected) and Kinder Morgan TransMountain (surprise) but, rejected Northern Gateway (expected). Not yet enough but, a start.

 

Cardboard

 

Must be your guys fault.  I didn't vote for him.  I logged a protest vote with some other party. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sad day for Canada and the planet...how can we reduce our GHG emission if we keep adding pipeline and increasing tar sands production? Honestly, you guys are really shortsighted..do you have any background in science at all?

 

I agree to keep existing pipelines, but I must admit that I find it ridiculous to add any. It is so much capital invested in something that we need to get rid of.

 

At least it is better than the Conservatives who would have approved Northern Gateway also...

 

I once again invite some of you to do some reading: http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sad day for Canada and the planet...how can we reduce our GHG emission if we keep adding pipeline and increasing tar sands production? Honestly, you guys are really shortsighted..do you have any background in science at all?

 

I think it's pretty reasonable if you are over the age of 50, and either don't have kids, or don't really care about them or anyone else on the planet.  Why does it matter to you if you'll likely be dead by the time that billions start perishing as a consequence of global warming?

 

Money today is what matters, not the survival of future generations.  (Besides, it gives you a really nice answer to the Fermi Paradox.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sad day for Canada and the planet...how can we reduce our GHG emission if we keep adding pipeline and increasing tar sands production? Honestly, you guys are really shortsighted..do you have any background in science at all?

 

I think it's pretty reasonable if you are over the age of 50, and either don't have kids, or don't really care about them or anyone else on the planet.  Why does it matter to you if you'll likely be dead by the time that billions start perishing as a consequence of global warming?

 

Money today is what matters, not the survival of future generations.  (Besides, it gives you a really nice answer to the Fermi Paradox.)

 

Intelligent life overcomes scarcity & consequently destroys the planet.

 

Future inhabitants are clueless (the wheel of life...)

 

Hey; anyone ever read A Canticle for Leibowitz?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

extremist environmentalists

 

When I see this phrase, I think of this scene from Utopia.

 

 

This 2 minute scene--so beautiful in such an unusual way--was enough to persuade me to watch the entire show.  :)

 

Nice (I like offbeat & slightly disturbing films too)

 

Makes us challenge our own sacred cows...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

extremist environmentalists

 

When I see this phrase, I think of this scene from Utopia.

 

 

This 2 minute scene--so beautiful in such an unusual way--was enough to persuade me to watch the entire show.  :)

Brilliant scene. I may watch some myself. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brilliant scene. I may watch some myself. :)

 

I enjoy it. Not as much as Black Mirror, but that's a high bar.  Nevertheless, be warned, Utopia is frequently graphically violent (not in a deliberately gratuitous way, but rather because it depicts extreme characters and extreme circumstances, and when those things combine, violence is frequently the only way the story can possibly play out.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like a great show  :o

 

I am sure that you guys would give raving reviews of a documentary on the life of Pol Pot!

 

Impoverishing, depriving current human beings of a better life in the name of saving future generations based on static extrapolation of an incomplete scientific model. Obviously, for everyone else but, yourself and close friends or just like that dear old Al Gore.

 

I will predict here that artificial intelligence has a much greater probability to wipe us out clean before the atmosphere temperature rises by just 1 degree. And regarding Fermi, let's pray that we don't meet the AI that may have developed on other distant planets just a few years before our own as the rate of learning of these machines is exponential.

 

Cardboard

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like a great show  :o

 

I am sure that you guys would give raving reviews of a documentary on the life of Pol Pot!

 

Impoverishing, depriving current human beings of a better life in the name of saving future generations based on static extrapolation of an incomplete scientific model. Obviously, for everyone else but, yourself and close friends or just like that dear old Al Gore.

 

I will predict here that artificial intelligence has a much greater probability to wipe us out clean before the atmosphere temperature rises by just 1 degree. And regarding Fermi, let's pray that we don't meet the AI that may have developed on other distant planets just a few years before our own as the rate of learning of these machines is exponential.

 

Cardboard

 

By artificial intelligence you must be referring to the president elect.

 

Your comment regarding impoverishment under the guise of benificence definitely points to the same individual.

 

Stay thin skinned & keep the fuzzy logic coming!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Impoverishing, depriving current human beings of a better life in the name of saving future generations based on static extrapolation of an incomplete scientific model.

 

I will predict here that artificial intelligence has a much greater probability to wipe us out clean before the atmosphere temperature rises by just 1 degree.

 

Don't be short with Cardboard, DooDiligence.  I actually enjoy this reasoning.  It's kind of like, "I don't understand why you're annoyed that I drugged you so I could extract one of your kidneys to sell on the black market.  I'll give you half the profit--that's money in your hand, today! People can live for years on one kidney, and besides, if I had extracted both, you'd be far more likely to die."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sad day for Canada and the planet...how can we reduce our GHG emission if we keep adding pipeline and increasing tar sands production? Honestly, you guys are really shortsighted..do you have any background in science at all?

 

I agree to keep existing pipelines, but I must admit that I find it ridiculous to add any. It is so much capital invested in something that we need to get rid of.

 

At least it is better than the Conservatives who would have approved Northern Gateway also...

 

I once again invite some of you to do some reading: http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture.html

 

Well that's pretty condescending.

 

I have a very deep science background, but I am also a pragmatist.

 

Tell me Jeff,

Do you have children?

Do you drive any kind of car?

Do you live in more than a one bedroom apartment?

Do you fly?

Do you drink coffee, eat food? 

 

 

In this world we need fossil fuels as we transition, and the need for fossil fuel based products will be with us a long time.  Since Canada is uniquely suited as a provider of fossil fuels without the nasty social baggage of the mid east, and others, I think this is a good thing.  And if you think turning over our energy security to someone else is a good thing then go live in the mideast, Nigeria, or Russia and see what life is like. 

 

And, we are reducing our footprint as we go, and rather rapidly.  Ontario, like it or not has phased out coal power.  The rest of the country is heading that way.  Coal, if you read your science, Jeff, is the single largest contributor of greenhouse gases.  Getting rid of this in favour of anything else is a step in the right direction.

 

Oh, and then there is the issue of manufacturing, including steel, solar panels, and Teslas.  It isn't solar that is providing the plastics, or energy, for these products.  I dont know if you looked out the window today but there isn't alot of solar power going around right now, anywhere in Canada, and the Northern US.  What works in southern climates is not necessarily the right thing for Canada, or the norhern US. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Impoverishing, depriving current human beings of a better life in the name of saving future generations based on static extrapolation of an incomplete scientific model.

 

I will predict here that artificial intelligence has a much greater probability to wipe us out clean before the atmosphere temperature rises by just 1 degree.

 

Don't be short with Cardboard, DooDiligence.  I actually enjoy this reasoning.  It's kind of like, "I don't understand why you're annoyed that I drugged you so I could extract one of your kidneys to sell on the black market.  I'll give you half the profit--that's money in your hand, today! People can live for years on one kidney, and besides, if I had extracted both, you'd be far more likely to die."

 

Comparing my enjoyment of the clip to "rave reviews of a documentary of Pol Pot" warrants a long response but I gave a short one instead...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sad day for Canada and the planet...how can we reduce our GHG emission if we keep adding pipeline and increasing tar sands production? Honestly, you guys are really shortsighted..do you have any background in science at all?

 

I agree to keep existing pipelines, but I must admit that I find it ridiculous to add any. It is so much capital invested in something that we need to get rid of.

 

At least it is better than the Conservatives who would have approved Northern Gateway also...

 

I once again invite some of you to do some reading: http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture.html

 

Well that's pretty condescending.

 

I have a very deep science background, but I am also a pragmatist.

 

Tell me Jeff,

Do you have children?

Do you drive any kind of car?

Do you live in more than a one bedroom apartment?

Do you fly?

Do you drink coffee, eat food? 

 

 

In this world we need fossil fuels as we transition, and the need for fossil fuel based products will be with us a long time.  Since Canada is uniquely suited as a provider of fossil fuels without the nasty social baggage of the mid east, and others, I think this is a good thing.  And if you think turning over our energy security to someone else is a good thing then go live in the mideast, Nigeria, or Russia and see what life is like. 

 

And, we are reducing our footprint as we go, and rather rapidly.  Ontario, like it or not has phased out coal power.  The rest of the country is heading that way.  Coal, if you read your science, Jeff, is the single largest contributor of greenhouse gases.  Getting rid of this in favour of anything else is a step in the right direction.

 

Oh, and then there is the issue of manufacturing, including steel, solar panels, and Teslas.  It isn't solar that is providing the plastics, or energy, for these products.  I dont know if you looked out the window today but there isn't alot of solar power going around right now, anywhere in Canada, and the Northern US.  What works in southern climates is not necessarily the right thing for Canada, or the norhern US.

 

Al, I'm sorry that it was perceived as condescending. English is not my first language and I can have some difficulties expressing strong ideas with the right tone. But I must admit that I am pretty tired to see some 1st degree analysis looking at really short term benefit on a value investing board where people should be able to think further than their little financial short terms benefit. People here are intelligent and it amazes me to see some weird view about climate change and environmental protection. And I must admit that Carboard doesn't show any tiny bit of understanding what is going on with climate change and it annoys me. When I hear about radical environmentalist and stuff like that, I always find that what is radical is to deny what is happening and keeping our head in the sand. Wanting a better world with less pollution and sustainable way of life dont appear radical to me!

 

I must also admit Al that I really appreciate your contribution here and I do not challenge your background.

 

To answer your question, we have one child, we live in a reasonably-sized townhouse in an urban area where we do shop locally most of the time, walking or biking. We commute by bus, metro and we have a car at home. It is a Chevrolet Volt, a plug-in hybrid which runs on both electricity and oil. Our electricity at home is provided by nearly 100% percent renewable energy. Yes we use energy, although I am always trying to increase our energy efficiency for our home and transportation, yes we do use some oil, and yes we travel by plane sometimes. I do offset all my transportation carbon footprint because of course, I still use some fossil fuels to live. I am not saying we don't use them and don't need them. They have been incredibly important and useful to humankind to get us where we are and I don't want to contest that. And I'm not saying the transition should be instantaneous. But I am trying to do the most I can to reduce my fossil fuel consumption and to accelerate the transition. The faster we will get out of fossil fuel, the better we will be. I just think that we should put a lot of energy as a specie to fight climate change and reduce our energy usage and transition to a post-fossil fuel world. I can not just accept that the transition will take time, I wish we could try altogether to accelerate it, because we don't have much time. The cost of inaction will be far greater than the cost of action, so why not put ou effort on this.

 

I totally agree with you that it is not because a solution is good for a country or a region that is good for everyone. And of course we do need fossil fuels for plastic, but that is not the larger problem right now. In Canada, transportation is the largest contributor to our emissions, so I think that reducing our petrol consumption is a no-brainer. And concerning the pipelines, we do use less petroleum as a nation that what is produce already, so we don't need more. I am not asking to close the shop right now, but that is not possible to keep adding more and more production and emitting more and more greenhouse gas while we are also trying all we can to reduce our emissions. We will absolutely miss all the target and I am not really positive about staying under the already dangerous 2 degree Celsius limit. To quote Elon Musk, do we really want to do this big experiment, do we want to take that risk?

 

Finally, concerning Canada and the Trudeau decision, a text in French for those who can read it that I mostly agree it and that summarize my thinking on this matter: http://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1003083/trudeau-pipelines-extraction-avant-environnement-fillion

 

 

And you know Al, and everyone, I would rather see Canadiens putting some effort to reduce the demand instead of cutting the supply. A consequent carbon tax, real objectives like really increasing the mass transportation and active transport share, a fast switch to EVs like in Norway where the market share is over 30%, getting rid of coal like Ontario is doing, etc. If we were really showing leadership, I could be less critical of this Trudeau decision. But still I think that we a limited amount of capital, we should put our money elsewhere than in pipelines that will be there for 50 years when we have to be out of oil at this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sad day for Canada and the planet...how can we reduce our GHG emission if we keep adding pipeline and increasing tar sands production? Honestly, you guys are really shortsighted..do you have any background in science at all?

 

I agree to keep existing pipelines, but I must admit that I find it ridiculous to add any. It is so much capital invested in something that we need to get rid of.

 

At least it is better than the Conservatives who would have approved Northern Gateway also...

 

I once again invite some of you to do some reading: http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture.html

 

Well that's pretty condescending.

 

I have a very deep science background, but I am also a pragmatist.

 

Tell me Jeff,

Do you have children?

Do you drive any kind of car?

Do you live in more than a one bedroom apartment?

Do you fly?

Do you drink coffee, eat food? 

 

 

In this world we need fossil fuels as we transition, and the need for fossil fuel based products will be with us a long time.  Since Canada is uniquely suited as a provider of fossil fuels without the nasty social baggage of the mid east, and others, I think this is a good thing.  And if you think turning over our energy security to someone else is a good thing then go live in the mideast, Nigeria, or Russia and see what life is like. 

 

And, we are reducing our footprint as we go, and rather rapidly.  Ontario, like it or not has phased out coal power.  The rest of the country is heading that way.  Coal, if you read your science, Jeff, is the single largest contributor of greenhouse gases.  Getting rid of this in favour of anything else is a step in the right direction.

 

Oh, and then there is the issue of manufacturing, including steel, solar panels, and Teslas.  It isn't solar that is providing the plastics, or energy, for these products.  I dont know if you looked out the window today but there isn't alot of solar power going around right now, anywhere in Canada, and the Northern US.  What works in southern climates is not necessarily the right thing for Canada, or the norhern US.

 

Al, I'm sorry that it was perceived as condescending. English is not my first language and I can have some difficulties expressing strong ideas with the right tone. But I must admit that I am pretty tired to see some 1st degree analysis looking at really short term benefit on a value investing board where people should be able to think further than their little financial short terms benefit. People here are intelligent and it amazes me to see some weird view about climate change and environmental protection. And I must admit that Carboard doesn't show any tiny bit of understanding what is going on with climate change and it annoys me. When I hear about radical environmentalist and stuff like that, I always find that what is radical is to deny what is happening and keeping our head in the sand. Wanting a better world with less pollution and sustainable way of life dont appear radical to me!

 

I must also admit Al that I really appreciate your contribution here and I do not challenge your background.

 

To answer your question, we have one child, we live in a reasonably-sized townhouse in an urban area where we do shop locally most of the time, walking or biking. We commute by bus, metro and we have a car at home. It is a Chevrolet Volt, a plug-in hybrid which runs on both electricity and oil. Our electricity at home is provided by nearly 100% percent renewable energy. Yes we use energy, although I am always trying to increase our energy efficiency for our home and transportation, yes we do use some oil, and yes we travel by plane sometimes. I do offset all my transportation carbon footprint because of course, I still use some fossil fuels to live. I am not saying we don't use them and don't need them. They have been incredibly important and useful to humankind to get us where we are and I don't want to contest that. And I'm not saying the transition should be instantaneous. But I am trying to do the most I can to reduce my fossil fuel consumption and to accelerate the transition. The faster we will get out of fossil fuel, the better we will be. I just think that we should put a lot of energy as a specie to fight climate change and reduce our energy usage and transition to a post-fossil fuel world. I can not just accept that the transition will take time, I wish we could try altogether to accelerate it, because we don't have much time. The cost of inaction will be far greater than the cost of action, so why not put ou effort on this.

 

I totally agree with you that it is not because a solution is good for a country or a region that is good for everyone. And of course we do not fossil fuels for plastic, but that is not the larger problem right now. In Canada, transportation is the largest contributor to our emissions, so I think that reducing our petrol consumption is a no-brainer. And concerning the pipelines, we do use less petroleum as a nation that what is produce already, so we don't need more. I am not asking to close the shop right now, but that is not possible to keep adding more and more production and emitting more and more greenhouse gas while we are also trying all we can to reduce our emissions. We will absolutely miss all the target and I am not really positive about staying under the already dangerous 2 degree Celsius limit. To quote Elon Musk, do we really want to do this big experiment, do we want to take that risk?

 

Finally, concerning Canada and the Trudeau decision, a text in French for those who can read it that I mostly agree it and that summarize my thinking on this matter: http://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1003083/trudeau-pipelines-extraction-avant-environnement-fillion

 

 

And you know Al, and everyone, I would rather see Canadiens putting some effort to reduce the demand instead of cutting the supply. A consequent carbon tax, real objectives like really increasing the mass transportation and active transport share, a fast switch to EVs lie in Norway where the market share is over 30%, getting rid of coal like Ontario is doing, etc. If we were really showing leadership, I could be less critical of this Trudeau decision. But still I think that we a limited amount of capital, we should put our money elsewhere than in pipelines that will be there for 50 years when we have to be out of oil at this time.

 

Well said & well lived.

 

Unfortunately the self styled "conservatives" will label you a dirty liberal no matter what...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sad day for Canada and the planet...how can we reduce our GHG emission if we keep adding pipeline and increasing tar sands production? Honestly, you guys are really shortsighted..do you have any background in science at all?

 

I agree to keep existing pipelines, but I must admit that I find it ridiculous to add any. It is so much capital invested in something that we need to get rid of.

 

At least it is better than the Conservatives who would have approved Northern Gateway also...

 

I once again invite some of you to do some reading: http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture.html

 

Well that's pretty condescending.

 

I have a very deep science background, but I am also a pragmatist.

 

Tell me Jeff,

Do you have children?

Do you drive any kind of car?

Do you live in more than a one bedroom apartment?

Do you fly?

Do you drink coffee, eat food? 

 

 

In this world we need fossil fuels as we transition, and the need for fossil fuel based products will be with us a long time.  Since Canada is uniquely suited as a provider of fossil fuels without the nasty social baggage of the mid east, and others, I think this is a good thing.  And if you think turning over our energy security to someone else is a good thing then go live in the mideast, Nigeria, or Russia and see what life is like. 

 

And, we are reducing our footprint as we go, and rather rapidly.  Ontario, like it or not has phased out coal power.  The rest of the country is heading that way.  Coal, if you read your science, Jeff, is the single largest contributor of greenhouse gases.  Getting rid of this in favour of anything else is a step in the right direction.

 

Oh, and then there is the issue of manufacturing, including steel, solar panels, and Teslas.  It isn't solar that is providing the plastics, or energy, for these products.  I dont know if you looked out the window today but there isn't alot of solar power going around right now, anywhere in Canada, and the Northern US.  What works in southern climates is not necessarily the right thing for Canada, or the norhern US.

 

Al, I'm sorry that it was perceived as condescending. English is not my first language and I can have some difficulties expressing strong ideas with the right tone. But I must admit that I am pretty tired to see some 1st degree analysis looking at really short term benefit on a value investing board where people should be able to think further than their little financial short terms benefit. People here are intelligent and it amazes me to see some weird view about climate change and environmental protection. And I must admit that Carboard doesn't show any tiny bit of understanding what is going on with climate change and it annoys me. When I hear about radical environmentalist and stuff like that, I always find that what is radical is to deny what is happening and keeping our head in the sand. Wanting a better world with less pollution and sustainable way of life dont appear radical to me!

 

I must also admit Al that I really appreciate your contribution here and I do not challenge your background.

 

To answer your question, we have one child, we live in a reasonably-sized townhouse in an urban area where we do shop locally most of the time, walking or biking. We commute by bus, metro and we have a car at home. It is a Chevrolet Volt, a plug-in hybrid which runs on both electricity and oil. Our electricity at home is provided by nearly 100% percent renewable energy. Yes we use energy, although I am always trying to increase our energy efficiency for our home and transportation, yes we do use some oil, and yes we travel by plane sometimes. I do offset all my transportation carbon footprint because of course, I still use some fossil fuels to live. I am not saying we don't use them and don't need them. They have been incredibly important and useful to humankind to get us where we are and I don't want to contest that. And I'm not saying the transition should be instantaneous. But I am trying to do the most I can to reduce my fossil fuel consumption and to accelerate the transition. The faster we will get out of fossil fuel, the better we will be. I just think that we should put a lot of energy as a specie to fight climate change and reduce our energy usage and transition to a post-fossil fuel world. I can not just accept that the transition will take time, I wish we could try altogether to accelerate it, because we don't have much time. The cost of inaction will be far greater than the cost of action, so why not put ou effort on this.

 

I totally agree with you that it is not because a solution is good for a country or a region that is good for everyone. And of course we do not fossil fuels for plastic, but that is not the larger problem right now. In Canada, transportation is the largest contributor to our emissions, so I think that reducing our petrol consumption is a no-brainer. And concerning the pipelines, we do use less petroleum as a nation that what is produce already, so we don't need more. I am not asking to close the shop right now, but that is not possible to keep adding more and more production and emitting more and more greenhouse gas while we are also trying all we can to reduce our emissions. We will absolutely miss all the target and I am not really positive about staying under the already dangerous 2 degree Celsius limit. To quote Elon Musk, do we really want to do this big experiment, do we want to take that risk?

 

Finally, concerning Canada and the Trudeau decision, a text in French for those who can read it that I mostly agree it and that summarize my thinking on this matter: http://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1003083/trudeau-pipelines-extraction-avant-environnement-fillion

 

 

And you know Al, and everyone, I would rather see Canadiens putting some effort to reduce the demand instead of cutting the supply. A consequent carbon tax, real objectives like really increasing the mass transportation and active transport share, a fast switch to EVs lie in Norway where the market share is over 30%, getting rid of coal like Ontario is doing, etc. If we were really showing leadership, I could be less critical of this Trudeau decision. But still I think that we a limited amount of capital, we should put our money elsewhere than in pipelines that will be there for 50 years when we have to be out of oil at this time.

 

Hi Jeff, I get you now.  English is my first language, and I have trouble expressing things without being a pr*ck sometimes.

 

I dont disagree with most of what you have said.  In fact in principle I disagree with the pipe to the coast.  I am okay with US Canada internal pipe to secure our energy futures while we transition.  Not only do I disagree with a pipe to the west coast, but I think it is a terrible business decision.  It will take years to get permitted, and built, and we, or whoever finances it, is taking a huge risk of ending up with a stranded asset.  Its going to get caught up in court anyway, just like Keystone will get caught up in Nebraska. 

 

Alberta has just pushed forward the mothballing of coal fired power plants and is going to be paying the companies to not produce.  How stupid is that?  We certainly dont want to end up on the hook to pay a Kinder Morgan for decades not to move oil. 

 

In my opinion Mr. Trudeau is sort of middling as a leader but that is what you get with dynastic politics.  Essentially, cabinet approved this as a vote getting measure in Alberta.  They can say they tried to get it done, but then not actively facilitate it.  And frankly, Alberta knows they have to reduce reliance on fossil fuels to mitigate this boom and bust cycle.

 

However, I have no problem owning stock in fossil fuel companies.  It is a product we still need, and use in multiple ways.  I also hold stock in two companies that are actively involved in renewables.  I am quite happy to part with my oil stocks when the writing is on the wall.  Chances are the companies will have transitioned in the meantime to energy companies. 

 

And finally, my families footprint is huge, relative to yours.  Would I like to reduce it?  Absolutely, but it is easier said then done.  Having an electric car would help but were not quite there yet.  Heating is problematic.  Any alternative to nat. gas is very expensive.  Flying is another problem, entirely.  The near future is not showing me a lightweight way to power planes. 

 

I think getting the world off coal for power production is a biggie.  And I mean everyone.  The world is heading that way anyway, but it could be accelerated.  I wouldnt buy stock in a coal company these days regardless of the idiot PEs intentions. 

 

Nuff said, for now. 

 

Cheers, Al

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who enjoys a show talking about slicing the troat of an innocent child in the name of saving CO2 emission is a deranged individual. Period!

 

Cardboard

 

It's always black & white with you people.

 

I enjoyed the Godfather & yet I wouldn't enjoy doing a hit.

 

I enjoyed Band of Brothers & yet wouldn't want to go to war.

 

You; on the other hand, deride me for being entertained by these films due to their violent content & yet you delight in picking virtual fights.

 

Get the chip off your shoulder (I'll bet it's not there in face to face conversations...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who enjoys a show talking about slicing the troat of an innocent child in the name of saving CO2 emission is a deranged individual. Period!

 

Cardboard

 

It's always black & white with you people.

 

I enjoyed the Godfather & yet I wouldn't enjoy doing a hit.

 

I enjoyed Band of Brothers & yet wouldn't want to go to war.

 

You; on the other hand, deride me for being entertained by these films due to their violent content & yet you delight in picking virtual fights.

 

Get the chip off your shoulder (I'll bet it's not there in face to face conversations...)

 

The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas

 

http://engl210-deykute.wikispaces.umb.edu/file/view/omelas.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who enjoys a show talking about slicing the troat of an innocent child in the name of saving CO2 emission is a deranged individual. Period!

 

It's even worse than that--I also watch Game of Thrones. In that, there's a guy who repeatedly rapes his own barely pubescent daughters & granddaughters and, when they become pregnant by him, sacrifices the newborn boys.  That's got to be an even stronger sign of my derangement, I think.

 

(That said, I'm not a fan of anything in the last few seasons related to Theon/Reek. That storyline zoomed right past the point of thought-provoking entertainment to stop squarely in the middle of pornographic sadism, I think.  Joffrey was about as far as they needed to take that kind of character. They didn't need Joffrey-squared in vivid high-definition.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...