Being Environmentally Friendly

[ckil]

In my mind, environmentally friendly would also be building more pipelines, so that we don't have to transport oil by rail or tanker trucks.

Tree-huggers do not understand that. If they do, they ignore the fact.

[Merry]

I can drive through much of Rutland and see yards filled up with junk. It’s not a native thing it’s a poor thing, it’s generally known that poor people don’t take care of their property as well as they should. In my years of hunting and hiking I’ve seen more illegal dump sites in the bush than I’ve seen dump sites in peoples yards.

Having junk in your yard isn’t a “poor” thing either. I once lived in a mining town where the vast majority had exceedingly high household incomes, and a significant number had yards that looked like scrap yards. My neighbour was one of them, and it used to drive me nuts.

Apparently his parents used to do the same, and presumably their parents, and so on. So it appears to be a behaviour that is passed down through the generations.

There are pigs in every ethnic group, and every societal level. Poverty and/or race are NOT the deciding factor. If it acts like a pig, then it IS a pig.

[Merry]

Another thing Governments could do is make electricity more affordable by subsidizing it, ...

That's as if governments make any money.

They could use the carbon tax money to subsidize electricity, thereby making electric heat a more affordable choice.

Sure beats just mailing everyone a cheque, which they can then choose to spend on more environmentally harmful products.

[BC Landlord]

They could use the carbon tax money to subsidize electricity, thereby making electric heat a more affordable choice.

That sounds like rob Peter to pay Paul. At the end, it all comes from our taxes. In other words, you would pay the full price, with or without subsidies. Having that in mind, I am not sure why would you want to replace NG heating with much more expensive electric? Are you that rich?

[Merry]

They could use the carbon tax money to subsidize electricity, thereby making electric heat a more affordable choice.

That sounds like rob Peter to pay Paul. At the end, it all comes from our taxes. In other words, you would pay the full price, with or without subsidies. Having that in mind, I am not sure why would you want to replace NG heating with much more expensive electric? Are you that rich?

You’re missing my point. The Government wants us to switch to electric, because it’s more environmentally friendly. But, as electric heat is so expensive, i was saying that if they want us to make the switch, they need to subsidize it to make it more affordable. Then you suggested that would involve paying higher taxes, so I said they could use the revenue from the carbon tax.

Get it now?

[Babba_not_Gump]

That sounds like rob Peter to pay Paul. At the end, it all comes from our taxes. In other words, you would pay the full price, with or without subsidies. Having that in mind, I am not sure why would you want to replace NG heating with much more expensive electric? Are you that rich?

You’re missing my point. The Government wants us to switch to electric, because it’s more environmentally friendly. But, as electric heat is so expensive, i was saying that if they want us to make the switch, they need to subsidize it to make it more affordable. Then you suggested that would involve paying higher taxes, so I said they could use the revenue from the carbon tax.

Get it now?

That's what robbing Peter to pay Paul is all about. Taxes, taxes, taxes.

[BC Landlord]

Another environmentally friendly thing would be to impose a ban on wind turbines, aka "bird mincers".

[Brass Monkey]

Another environmentally friendly thing would be to impose a ban on wind turbines, aka "bird mincers".

Windows kill 500x more birds in Canada than wind turbines, are you going to pull the windows off your house?

[PoplarSoul]

Interesting short video on "Consumerism" and in turn its effect on environment.

[BC Landlord]

Windows kill 500x more birds in Canada than wind turbines, are you going to pull the windows off your house?

If true, that's probably because there are millions of times more windows than wind turbines. Secondly, we can do without the later, but not the former.

[Merry]

Interesting short video on "Consumerism" and in turn its effect on environment.

I was agreeing with most of what this video said, until I got to the end and the recommendations offered were just more of the same things that the entire video had been saying don’t work without a concurrent reduction in consumption.

If we want to see a reduction in consumption we ought to be supporting things like the “right to repair”, increasing the capital gains tax on second homes, putting cooking and nutrition classes back into high schools, taxing large gas guzzling vehicles, boats and RV’s to make more fuel efficient alternatives attractive (as opposed to slapping massive taxes on the actual gas itself, which often unfairly penalizes those who can least afford it).

However, if we make second homes, large gas guzzling vehicles, motor homes, trailers, boats, skidoos, seadoos, etc unaffordable for the masses, in order to encourage the manufacture of smaller fuel efficient vehicles, smaller camping trailers, smaller more fuel efficient boats, etc. there will be a negative impact on our economy. Which will, in turn, affect the Government’s ability to deliver all the services so many of us have come to expect.

A return to 60’s consumption levels wouldn’t only be a lessening of what we consume commercially, it would require a lower consumption of Government services as well. And THAT is the part of the equation that many are not willing to accept.

[liisgo]

Another thing Governments could do is make electricity more affordable by subsidizing it, which would encourage more folks to switch to electric heat. Because the way it is now, only rich people can afford to make the switch from Natural Gas to Electric.

They always end up subsidizing electricity once they convert to renewables ( see Germany and Ontario for example). Contrary to climate alarmists, Natural gas is the cleanest and cheapest form of energy unless one has access to hydro. Nuclear is always an option as well.

There is a big argument for this though. Natural gas, (that name itself was developed to assist in a campaign that they hope keeps the environmentalists away), is anything but clean. Its a fossil fuel, an extremely ozone damaging fuel during removal of it and then burning of it. At zero time should it be considered an option if we really are talking saving the environment. Hydro, here in BC, if it is the answer to vehicle's, should also be the answer to our homes. Why it is not, not supported by government is because of the financial offerings of it. Our governments support it and its industry because of the cash. And I get that. But the hypocritical talking and supporting of it needs to be realized as complete crap.
Nuclear is by far the safest, with today's tech. It gets shamed because of the same governments and people who have different interest's and the ones that have been manipulated. Which always goes hand in hand for political reasons.
As stated above, 2 of the largest oil transport contracts have been given to the 2 richest men in the world from the last election in the US. How easily the governments created a blinding campaign to achieve votes from the easy by cancelling a pipeline and now it feeds the wealthy and gets to be transported the most dangerous way through our lands.
How's that for all of us being environmentally concerned.
The biggest example of political manipulation I have ever seen is the cancelling of the Aspen groove hwy. That hwy would have eliminated 20 minutes a day of ozone destroying CO X thousands of vehicles a day X day after day. That one commitment from our governments over the years now would have had a far bigger positive addition to our situation.
Cheers.

[rustled]

Interesting short video on "Consumerism" and in turn its effect on environment.

I was agreeing with most of what this video said, until I got to the end and the recommendations offered were just more of the same things that the entire video had been saying don’t work without a concurrent reduction in consumption.

If we want to see a reduction in consumption we ought to be supporting things like the “right to repair”, increasing the capital gains tax on second homes, putting cooking and nutrition classes back into high schools, taxing large gas guzzling vehicles, boats and RV’s to make more fuel efficient alternatives attractive (as opposed to slapping massive taxes on the actual gas itself, which often unfairly penalizes those who can least afford it).

However, if we make second homes, large gas guzzling vehicles, motor homes, trailers, boats, skidoos, seadoos, etc unaffordable for the masses, in order to encourage the manufacture of smaller fuel efficient vehicles, smaller camping trailers, smaller more fuel efficient boats, etc. there will be a negative impact on our economy. Which will, in turn, affect the Government’s ability to deliver all the services so many of us have come to expect.

A return to 60’s consumption levels wouldn’t only be a lessening of what we consume commercially, it would require a lower consumption of Government services as well. And THAT is the part of the equation that many are not willing to accept.

I agree with much of what you've written here, but from the get-go I found the video's narrative too reliant on emotional manipulation - disaster, emergency, urgent, crisis, etc.

Its intent was to convince the viewer that we should all be so desperate to avoid the "worst case scenario", we are willing to support energy austerity and policies that are punitive to "corporations" - and that is never so much about protecting the environment as it is about wealth redistribution.

Policies around "right to repair" and planned obsolescence are sensible. Encouraging people to reduce their waste is sensible - provided we avoid the propensity for pretending recyclables are not waste. Recyclables are waste, too, and the emphasis should first be on reduction and re-use. Encouraging people to reduce their reliance on various forms of energy by making adjustments to thermostats, carpooling, etc. is sensible.

Punishing people for using enough energy to heat and cool their homes to a comfortable level, punishing people for enjoying more than the most basic standard of living - that's not sensible. It's no different IMO than the mean-spiritedness cloaked in righteousness of later-day Calvinism, which began as an antidote to Catholicism and lost its humanism along the way.

We should be skeptical of competing ideologies that consistently put their ideology before people. I'd like us to get back to focusing on practical environmentalism.

[Merry]

We should be skeptical of competing ideologies that consistently put their ideology before people. I'd like us to get back to focusing on practical environmentalism.

[PoplarSoul]

Another interesting video.
The majority are too addicted to their extra "stuff" to ever work.
"The most basic standard of living" is not for everyone.