As if we all knew about climate change

[Ka-El]

Green Box, Blue Box, cans and bottles get taken in every few months...........THATS THE EXTENT OF ME "SAVING THE PLANET"! You want to buy into it hook, line and sinker...........knock yourself out.........and YOUR wallet!

Speaking of which, if we're going to spend hoards of money to start cleaning up the mess, let's start with those man-made islands of plastic garbage floating around the Pacific killing fish and birds and entering the food stream.

[Silverstarqueen]

Or we could recycle the hoards of edible food that is tossed out of Unnamed big grocery stores.
Meanwhile the food bank shelves are seriously understocked.

[Glacier]

Or we could recycle the hoards of edible food that is tossed out of Unnamed big grocery stores.
Meanwhile the food bank shelves are seriously understocked.

When I was a kid we would get expired food from the food bank. Safeway donated the food. Things like Yogurt and bread. As long as you put it in freezer, it wouldn't spoil. These days this sort of thing is too risky for Safeway because they could be sued if it gets someone sick.

[StraitTalk]

This thread is not here to debate whether it is or isn't happening. If you are unable to read the first post and follow the guidelines of the topic, you should consider your motives for being here in the first place.

STOP derailing the thread now.

[StraitTalk]

The biggest polluters go first. If you have profuse bleeding, you tourniquet. and worry about the nicks and cuts later.

Canada would contribute little nicks and cuts at best, and are now being asked to pay the triage bill..

First off, sitting on your hands and waiting for others to go first is exactly how we've gotten into this mess and second, there are massive developing countries around the world that learn from our example. Social and political pressure are lacking, if more people can become more conscious, it will catch on.

[StraitTalk]

The only time I ever see that statistic levelled in serious conversation about climate change is by people attempting to use it as "proof" of a hoax. I don't think that video has much to do with what I am claiming and respectfully, I'll ask you to stop and take that conversation elsewhere as I have already asked in the original post.

[MrSandman]

There is actually a lot of good YouTube content out there, fully sourced and devoted to education.

Prager U is not one of those things. It's just right wing propaganda.

Christina Hoff Summers, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Dave Rubin do videos for them, and they aren't right-wing. The reason you're attacking the source instead of the content is because the content is 100% right, and it causes you discomfort when facts go against your world view.

but did they make THAT video in question? Why reference them in the first place?

google says:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christina_Hoff_Sommers

Christina Marie Hoff Sommers (born September 28, 1950) is an American author, former philosophy professor, and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a conservative think tank.

Dennis Prager is a total conservative cuckoo nutjob. To say that prager U is not conservative is ignorant

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dennis_Prager

America is engaged in two wars for the survival of its civilization. The war over same-sex marriage and the war against Islamic totalitarianism are actually two fronts in the same war — a war for the preservation of the unique American creation known as Judeo-Christian civilization. One enemy is religious extremism. The other is secular extremism. One enemy is led from abroad. The other is directed from home.

He has also started his own non-profit online program called Prager University. Keeping up with his paranoia around universities turning students into secular bisexual leftists, the "university" has the totally not bizarre motto "Undoing the damage of the University... five minutes at a time." (Since it's unaccredited calling it a university can seriously mislead people who do not check carefully and nobody has time to check everything carefully.)
Prager "University" actually presents history and politics from a hard-right point of view. This includes rampant New Deal denialism, promotion of the Laffer curve, Europhobia, and an off the walls weird interpretation of liberalism.[42] The channel also promotes zionist pro-Israeli politics, claiming the IDF to be the "World's Most Moral Army",[43], and promotes fossil fuels as being "the greenest energy".[44][45] It has called wealth income inequality "good".[46] In a multitude of ill-informed videos, it furthermore espouses Climate change denialism[47][48], militarism[49] and American exceptionalism,[50][51] and probably many more nutty reactionary beliefs.

[Silverstarqueen]

To be realistic, climate change is going to raise sea levels, probably quite a bit. It has done so in the past, so no reason to believe it won't do in the future (some debate as to how quickly, but next hundred years or so).
So people should be moved out of places like Richmond and Delta, since those are at sea level, and will inevitably be under water. or do we ignore that risk and put up with the wailing and gnashing of teeth, as people expect everyone to save their homes and communities. Are roads being built to circumnavigate this area and avoid disastrous damage to transport arteries in the lower mainland?
That is, if a tsunami doesn't hit the coast first like the one in the 1700's where sealevels will rise three or more meters instantly, instead of over centuries. So there are at least two reasons to get more of the population to higher ground sooner than later.
http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/ ... story.html
The same applies to coastal cities and town around the world. It took Katrina for those in the South to realize you shouldn't build a city below water level on the coast.

[Ka-El]

Moving entire communities, even cities to higher ground may not be feasible. However, building advanced and permanent levies and dykes is. I really don’t see carbon taxes having any impact on climate change, and if we accept climate is changing – and we accept that the result of that change is going to be melting ice, rising sea levels and more significant storm events – then we better start allocating resources to prepare for (defend against and take advantage of) these events.

Whether man has any influence on climate change is kind of a moot argument because we certainly are not the most significant influence. We may be contributing to this change but it is and will happen anyway no matter what we do. The idea we can stop, or even significantly slow climate change is, in my opinion, both arrogant and dangerously naïve. I say dangerously because I do accept climate is changing and I do believe there will continue to be dire consequences from that change (along with consequences that could prove to be beneficial) and I believe we do need to prepare ourselves to adapt because it is going to happen and continue to happen. This is not to be confused with some argument that we not concern ourselves with further polluting our air, ground and water, but realistically our advancement is still going to require the continued use of fossil fuels (for a whole plethora of reasons) and likely will for some time.

[Silverstarqueen]

Levies, how high is reasonable? or is it just setting people up for a huge risk of catastrophe?
Estimated waves on Pacific coast in the next hundred years, could be 55 feet.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 123233.htm
Why continue to develop areas already at sea level?

Surely there is some sense to not allowing people to continue to move into areas likely to be flooded over then next 100 years. Just don't allow new people to move into the lower lands.

[Jlabute]

The 97% is very much factually correct. This is why I don't go to Youtube for my facts. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Wow, looks like the American Medical Association is part of that group... What a joke.

Then again, no one understood what would happen before Y2K... and that is a totally man-made complex system. The climate is 1,000,000 times more complex than Y2K and to say something like CO2 is up and we're all gonna die is infantile.

[Ka-El]

Levies, how high is reasonable? or is it just setting people up for a huge risk of catastrophe?
Estimated waves on Pacific coast in the next hundred years, could be 55 feet.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 123233.htm
Why continue to develop areas already at sea level?

Agreed it makes no sense to continue to develop at sea level - at least any new development - but levies could be built, and yes, given what we are facing these levies would have to be constructed to a scale we have not seen before. However, we do have the technology to embark on projects like this, and we can come up with other ideas. The point is that advanced levies are at least one realistic option. Thinking we can stop or even slow climate change by imposing a carbon tax is not.

[Silverstarqueen]

Already two major floods in the RIchmond area and still they insist on putting more and more people in harm's way.
Billions of dollars in damages predicted, but no one seems to face reality since it's been over 50 years since the last flood.

The largest Fraser River flood on record was in May, 1894 when rapid snowmelt caused river levels to rise dramatically, triggering flooding from Harrison to Richmond. The flood was massive; however, property damage was limited because settlement was sparse. The next largest Fraser flood of record was in 1948. Because of increased development and population growth in the floodplain, the impacts were much greater than in 1894. According to the Province of BC, this included:

evacuation of 16,000 people
damage or complete destruction of about 2,000 homes
$210 million in damages (2010 dollars).
The Province also flags that recent studies show a reoccurrence of the 1894 flood could cause approximately $1 billion in economic damages to the City of Chilliwack and several billion in economic damages to the City of Richmond. Read more on the provincial Dike Management and Safety page.

Since 1948 the Fraser River has not had a flood of this magnitude, although there have been many high water events and limited floods.

Integrated Flood Management

Nature controls the timing and severity of flood events, but communities can reduce the extent of damage through floodplain bylaws, flood protection works, floodproofing measures and emergency flood plans. Combined, these activities provide an integrated approach to flood hazard management.

Today in the Fraser Basin, there are about 600 km of dikes, 400 floodboxes and 100 pump stations to protect communities and infrastructure from flooding. Although dikes and drainage are critical infrastructure, land use planning is also pivotal to minimizing risk of catastrophic loss, and this may include community decisions to limit development and infrastructure in floodplain areas."
And none of this even mentions the risk from an earth shake. Why tell people to have a kit prepared to survive a few days in event of catastrophe, when they are being allowed to live on land which will be instant quick sand if it floods or there's a quake, tsunami? The dikes are planned to be raised , but not nearly to accomodate predicted high water/wave levels.

[Glacier]

The only time I ever see that statistic levelled in serious conversation about climate change is by people attempting to use it as "proof" of a hoax. I don't think that video has much to do with what I am claiming and respectfully, I'll ask you to stop and take that conversation elsewhere as I have already asked in the original post.

Fair enough. I guess the premise of this thread is to first assume the threats are real, and instead to discuss how to deal with the problem.

I agree with most of what you say in the "things to consider." 40% of the GHG produced in Canada is from cars and trucks. Irrespective of the impact on the weather patterns, the other stuff coming out of the tailpipe is not good for anyone. I think we should move away from designing cities to suit the car to one that accommodates the bicycle as an equal. I've talked about this before. Look at Holland and Alaska for great examples of how this is done.

[Silverstarqueen]

I am quite frequently on the roads (not driving), and i can tell you most of them are not safe for cyclists (mainly due to driver behavior, lack of shoulder or bike lanes). So this would have to be solved before cycling becomes more popular. I used to cycle everywhere, but I do not now.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... -1.3839054

ANchorage supposedly has 1% regular bike riders, which is great, but it isn't exactly a model for most cities at that rate.