Alberta: more bad news coming

[foenix]

I see no background support in any of the posts claiming that our forests are a significant carbon sink either.

Perhaps you missed them? These authors carefully choose their words to support the preferred narrative, referencing the NIR when the meat of the NIR is unavailable. Why?

You've also chosen to fixate on forests - again. Muskeg and agricultural land and water are all carbon sinks, too.

It doesn't make sense, given the level of deforestation by fire, insect blight and resource extraction it's a no brainer that there are fewer trees today than there were before, and it's also a no-brainer that our man-made GHG emissions have grown hugely, of course we have pushed things out of balance.

These are the forest-focused talking points to support the "scary scenarios" and "dramatic statements" narrative.

Several people have pointed out we should rely on the science, not on talking points and our own opinions. There's only partial science shared about Canada's carbon sinks. Why?

I'm much more inclined to beleive the science in the links I provided than to believe someone with an agenda for "business as usual" in our fossil fuel production and consumption.

I've not suggested anyone should disbelieve the science in the reports - simply called your attention to the science that's missing from the equation you're relying on for your opinion.

And my agenda is, as always, the full truth - you saying my agenda is "'business as usual' in our fossil fuel production and consumption" is incorrect, and repeating it won't make it the truth, either.
When some of the science necessary for a proper assessment of what should be done isn't available, I ask why.

Albertans who ask why are sensible people. IMO.

If the agenda is the full truth but that is hard to do when one is choosing to not see the readily available science and the data that is already out there. Canadian scientists have been studying and quantifying the various sinks and sources of Canada's carbon footprint for years now including muskeg, agricultural land and water. Diane Francis as good as she is sometimes didn't do her basic research either when she wrote her article about Canada's footprint and now comes off as misinformed and ill prepared. Decent journalist can't take a reputational hit like that and still remain credible.

[fluffy]

There are more trees today than there was 100 years ago, but please provide me proof I am wrong.

I take it it's been some time since you were in an airplane. Flying over BC is like flying over a patchwork quilt. How about you provide some proof that there are more trees now after a century or two of logging and clearing land for agriculture, not to mention urban sprawl and bug and fire kill.

Try: globalforestwatch.org

[ckil]

There are more trees today than there was 100 years ago, but please provide me proof I am wrong.

I take it it's been some time since you were in an airplane. Flying over BC is like flying over a patchwork quilt. How about you provide some proof that there are more trees now after a century or two of logging and clearing land for agriculture, not to mention urban sprawl and bug and fire kill.

Try: globalforestwatch.org

I did not realize that you can see all of Canada by flying over BC. Clearly you are a Flat-Earther as well.

Q: Are There More Trees Today Than There Were 100 Years Ago?

https://blogs.alphagraphics.com/blog/om ... years-ago/


Earth has more trees now than 35 years ago

https://news.mongabay.com/2018/08/earth ... years-ago/

You need to give it up Admit you are being brainwashed by climate alarmists.

[foenix]

I take it it's been some time since you were in an airplane. Flying over BC is like flying over a patchwork quilt. How about you provide some proof that there are more trees now after a century or two of logging and clearing land for agriculture, not to mention urban sprawl and bug and fire kill.

Try: globalforestwatch.org

I did not realize that you can see all of Canada by flying over BC. Clearly you are a Flat-Earther as well.

Q: Are There More Trees Today Than There Were 100 Years Ago?

https://blogs.alphagraphics.com/blog/om ... years-ago/


Earth has more trees now than 35 years ago

https://news.mongabay.com/2018/08/earth ... years-ago/

You need to give it up Admit you are being brainwashed by climate alarmists.

I would say this is more of the cant see the forest because of the trees in front of you


Earth has more trees than it did 35 years ago - but there’s a huge catch

The research suggests an area covering 2.24 million square kilometers - roughly the combined land surface of Texas and Alaska, two sizeable US states - has been added to global tree cover since 1982. This equates to 7% of the Earth’s surface covered by new trees.

But what may sound like good news for the planet actually represents mixed news for the environment.


The findings may appear to contradict the long-established view that forests are being destroyed. A report from the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization, for example, says there has been a net loss of 1.29 million square kilometers of forest between 1990 and 2015.

The Nature study’s lead scientists Xiao-Peng Song and Matthew Hansen agree the planet has lost large expanses of tree area, largely in the tropics.

They recorded 1.33 million square kilometers of fallen tree cover between 1982 and 2016, mostly through land clearance for agriculture, forestry and urban development. But they also point to tree cover gains that more than compensate for the loss.


However, an important distinction needs to be made between tree cover and forest cover.

The study points out that industrial timber plantations, mature oil palm estates and other specifically planted forests add to global tree cover. On paper these areas compensate for the primary forest that has been cut down; 100-hectare loss of primary forest is perfectly offset by a 100-hectare gain on a man-made plantation, for example.

But while they may be equal in area, they are not equal in biodiversity. Primary tropical forests and savannas harbour a wealth of flora and fauna which is lost when these areas are cleared.

And man-made forests do not compensate for the damage and degradation done to ecosystems through land clearance.

The research attributes 60% of all land-use change throughout the study period directly to human activity, with the remaining 40% caused by indirect factors like climate change.

As the Earth turns increasingly green it could be masking the true extent of environmental harm caused by human activity.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/08/ ... years-ago/


Planting trees doesn’t always help with climate change

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2020 ... ate-change

[fluffy]

Earth has more trees now than 35 years ago

Apparently Canada does not or we wouldn't have been reduced to a carbon source from a carbon sink. Maybe simple counting is giving a false picture. How many newly planted trees would it take to equal the carbon storage capability of a single mature tree ?

[ckil]

Climate Alarmists are a hilarious bunch. Keep grasping at straws.

[foenix]

Earth has more trees now than 35 years ago

Apparently Canada does not or we wouldn't have been reduced to a carbon source from a carbon sink. Maybe simple counting is giving a false picture. How many newly planted trees would it take to equal the carbon storage capability of a single mature tree ?

The climate deniers are only looking at 1 part of the equation....we may have more tree now as sinks but they are also the source as well.....just take a look at the haze sometimes when our forest are burning this summer. I read we have been a net carbon source since 2011 but this article says our forests haven't been carbon sinks since 2001.

Canada's forests actually emit more carbon than they absorb — despite what you've heard on Facebook

You might have heard that Canada's forests are an immense carbon sink, sucking up all sorts of CO2 — more than we produce — so we don't have to worry about our greenhouse gas emissions.

This claim has been circulated on social media and repeated by pundits and politicians.

This would be convenient for our country, if it were real. Hitting our emissions-reduction targets would be a breeze. But, like most things that sound too good to be true, this one is false.

That's because trees don't just absorb carbon when they grow, they emit it when they die and decompose, or burn.

When you add up both the absorption and emission, Canada's forests haven't been a net carbon sink since 2001. Due largely to forest fires and insect infestations, the trees have actually added to our country's greenhouse gas emissions for each of the past 15 years on record.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5011490

[foenix]

Climate Alarmists are a hilarious bunch. Keep grasping at straws.

Climate deniers are are even worse but then again Alberta has to protect their interests and rally around their main export which is the source of a lot of Canada's carbon footprint........but do keep trying its entertaining.

[fluffy]

Climate deniers are are even worse but then again Alberta has to protect their interests and rally around their main export which is the source of a lot of Canada's carbon footprint........but do keep trying its entertaining.

I totally get what Alberta and Albertans are going through, but the writing is on the wall for burning fossil fuels. The oil & gas sector will likely see a few good years ahead by way of improving efficiency and increased production, but the slide in quality of work for Albertans that started in 2014/15 will continue. There is still money to be made in the oil patch, but not as much and the work will be harder. The changes I saw in the last five or six years bear that out.

[crookedmember]

Alberta's new Minister of Culture and Status of Women.

[crookedmember]

Kenney's hAlberta loses another 37,000 jobs in June.
(Canada gains 264,000.)

Who would have thought a guy who flunked out of bible school could make such a mess of the province?

[ckil]

Climate deniers are are even worse but then again Alberta has to protect their interests and rally around their main export which is the source of a lot of Canada's carbon footprint........but do keep trying its entertaining.

I totally get what Alberta and Albertans are going through, but the writing is on the wall for burning fossil fuels. The oil & gas sector will likely see a few good years ahead by way of improving efficiency and increased production, but the slide in quality of work for Albertans that started in 2014/15 will continue. There is still money to be made in the oil patch, but not as much and the work will be harder. The changes I saw in the last five or six years bear that out.

You are forgetting that the industry came under fire when we voted in our useless PM and then Covid forced the global economy to a complete standstill in 2020 causing demand for oil to fall. A new PM that will reverse us from the course of being the only country in the world to not exploit our natural resources will create a massive boom in Canada's resource sector. The world demands our resources but Canada has turned into a bunch of losers who have fallen to the climate warming cult. Rather than allowing us to sell our oil and byproducts which are extracted under the most strict environmental laws in the world, Canadians are proud to allow countries with horrible human rights records and low environmental standards to sell us theirs.

Once the Liberals are gone, Canada will experience a huge boom and the jobs will return.

Burning fossil fuels will be around for at least 30 more years. It will take that long for an EV infrastructure to be built(if at all) and solar and wind will never be capable of powering the world. Hydrogen will be the next fossil fuel. Cleaner and Global infrastructure is already in place.

[fluffy]

Once the Liberals are gone, Canada will experience a huge boom and the jobs will return.

You are forgetting that there is as considerable portion of the electorate that would just as soon seen see the oilsands gone, and while you and I both kn ow that's not going to happen any time soon those people still have a vote and as such deserve the PM's ear. Without him the TMX would still be bound up in court challenges and nervous investors.

Government does not set oil prices, nor do they control the market. O'Toole will no more be able to instigate a "huge boom" any more than Kenney could. Alberta is at the mercy of a global oversupply, and if the industry is no longer viable then that's their problem, propping them up with tax-payer dollars anything beyond what they have already received would be a bad idea on a number of levels.

[The Green Barbarian]

You are forgetting that there is as considerable portion of the electorate that would just as soon seen see the oilsands gone,

No one wants the "oilsands gone" - that's like saying you want Newfoundland gone. It just makes no sense. You can't just destroy an entire area of Canada.

[Gone_Fishin]

You are forgetting that there is as considerable portion of the electorate that would just as soon seen see the oilsands gone

Only really, really stupid people that have no concept of reality want that.