Stealth Climate Lockdowns

[rookiepilot]

Transportation chaos that is refusing to be fixed by Government or Airlines.

Passport delays…..refusing to be fixed.

I wouldn’t normally think this way…..but look at the evidence!

One has to wonder if its by design.

[Bingo Fuel]

This is your fourth time creating a thread about this topic.

Twice this month alone.

Why not just keep the old threads going?

We get it. You're opposed to environmental protection measures. You're beating a dead horse.

[rookiepilot]

We get it. You're opposed to environmental protection measures.

That's what you see??

You know how many easy environmental initiatives the Gov could be doing, and isn't?

Plant urban trees. Retrofit buildings, for 2 lay-ups.

[Inverted2]

Now Castreau (along with Ireland, Holland etc) want to reduce fertilizer use by 30%. Well guess what? Farmers don't waste expensive fertilizer, so 30% less means way less crop yields and way less food. Still think all this is a conspiracy?

[Bingo Fuel]

Now Castreau (along with Ireland, Holland etc) want to reduce fertilizer use by 30%. Well guess what? Farmers don't waste expensive fertilizer, so 30% less means way less crop yields and way less food. Still think all this is a conspiracy?

I'm sure none of this has to do with the fact that Russia is a major exporter of fertilizer.

[Bingo Fuel]

We get it. You're opposed to environmental protection measures.

That's what you see??

You know how many easy environmental initiatives the Gov could be doing, and isn't?

Plant urban trees. Retrofit buildings, for 2 lay-ups.

Is that not contained in the current plan?

https://www.canada.ca/en/services/envir ... -2050.html

I agree we should be doing more, though.

[geodoc]

Interesting article making a case for reduction in the use of fertilizers in industrial agriculture:

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2022/0 ... e-possible




.

[rookiepilot]

We get it. You're opposed to environmental protection measures.

That's what you see??

You know how many easy environmental initiatives the Gov could be doing, and isn't?

Plant urban trees. Retrofit buildings, for 2 lay-ups.

Is that not contained in the current plan?

https://www.canada.ca/en/services/envir ... -2050.html

I agree we should be doing more, though.

Just not seeing these things happen with any urgency. Perhaps I am wrong.

Credits for HVAC replacement. Paint commercial roofs white. (Reflects heat) Integration of trees….everywhere. On roofs, buildings, roadways, too. Saw this in Singapore.

And Carbon capture. Thats the big enchilada IMO.

[7ECA]

And Carbon capture. Thats the big enchilada IMO.

Urban trees aren't much use, when they cost huge amounts of money to maintain and simply die after a very short lifespan due to the completely unacceptable growing conditions. Do I think cities should abandon planting trees, not at all. But, they're hardly a solution slapping trees along roadways and sidewalks. Forcing developers to not clear cut entire parcels of land would be a much better start, in addition to actually ensuring bylaws around tree planting are followed to the letter - or, incentivize planting trees and native shrubs/plants with new developments.

As for "simple retrofits", they're usually anything but simple and hardly cost effective. Look at the average high-rise these days, it's concrete and glass - glass for the views; but that just makes them an oven in the summer. Building codes need a massive overhaul, across the nation, to ensure that there is a shift in thinking beyond the need for heat and heat retention in the winter - to ensuring that cooling and airflow become just as important in new building design. Older buildings are often more expensive to retrofit without major work, to the point of being nearly more cost effective to just tear them down and start new versus gutting them.

And Carbon Capture, is greenwashed pseudo science at it's finest. A completely unproven technology, that requires massive, I mean MASSIVE, amounts of energy to achieve anything - in addition to needing to be scaled up in project size to the point of insanity before any benefit can even be achieved. Also, the idea that we'll be able to carbon capture our way out of climate change is a fallacy. Without actual large scale reductions in carbon emissions, there's no way to even begin to stem the tide of climate change, let alone slow down the damage we've created by continuously punting the issue down the road. There's just no silver bullet solution, be it technology or otherwise, that's going to allow a continued reliance on carbon intensive energy sources without simply damning us.

[WellThatAgedWell]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/meta-cov ... 852c3e8e49

This has to be some of the most hilarious leftist BS.

Social media platforms debating whether they should keep sensoring covid misinformation .

They know they were wrong to delete a bunch of accurate information and now the backtrack begins. But they are trying to play it like the posters they removed were anti science. Lmao this is completely dumb.

Watch out, meta might ban you if you post information such as "electric cars are not zero emissions".

[BigQ]

Interesting article making a case for reduction in the use of fertilizers in industrial agriculture:

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2022/0 ... e-possible

.

Farmer here. I'm 120% all about regenerative agriculture and getting the world off of synthetic fertilizers.

But if you cut nitrogen fertilizers by 30% in 8 years, you WILL see widespread worldwide famine, and in North Americans' case at least, an increase of the cost of food from about 9% of total spending to a minimum of 20%.

This NEEDS to be a 10-15 year process minimum, and our agriculture will become very ruminant animal-heavy. The land currently farmed with synthetic fertilizers cannot take a cut of fertilizers without an even greater (proportionally) loss in productivity.

[geodoc]

Interesting article making a case for reduction in the use of fertilizers in industrial agriculture:

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2022/0 ... e-possible

.

Farmer here. I'm 120% all about regenerative agriculture and getting the world off of synthetic fertilizers.

But if you cut nitrogen fertilizers by 30% in 8 years, you WILL see widespread worldwide famine, and in North Americans' case at least, an increase of the cost of food from about 9% of total spending to a minimum of 20%.

This NEEDS to be a 10-15 year process minimum, and our agriculture will become very ruminant animal-heavy. The land currently farmed with synthetic fertilizers cannot take a cut of fertilizers without an even greater (proportionally) loss in productivity.

Interesting. I read the articles linked from the article I put up and would like to read more about this. It looks like it 's going to be a matter that will be drawing more & more attention coming up. Have any links to share to help with a wider perspective?

Thanks -

[BE02 Driver]

Does anyone else find it fascinating that these WEF billionaires like Gates started buy HUGE amounts of farm land right before the drive to decrease fertilizer usage, there by requiring more farmland to produce the same amount of crops?

[TG]

Does anyone else find it fascinating that these WEF billionaires like Gates started buy HUGE amounts of farm land right before the drive to decrease fertilizer usage, there by requiring more farmland to produce the same amount of crops?

Nothing fascinating:
https://www.reuters.com/article/factche ... SL2N2WX208

According to a January 2021 article by ‘The Land Report’, Gates owned 242,000 acres of farmland through two investment management firms - Cottonwood Ag Management and Cascade Investment (here).

The figure is far below the total area of U.S. farmland. A 2021 report published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) said there were 895,300,000 acres of farmland in the United States. (here). Using those figures, Gates would own about 0.027% of U.S. farmland.

Otherwise yes, he is the largest private farmland owner...

[‘Bob’]

And Carbon Capture, is greenwashed pseudo science at it's finest.

Uh.. no. Carbon capture is preventing more carbon from entering the carbon cycle.

Here. Carbon cycle 101. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. It retains more heat from the sun than it lets escape.. like a greenhouse. You want to see a runaway greenhouse effect… look at Venus. It’s hotter than Mercury even though it’s further from the Sun. So carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, period.

The carbon dioxide is variously released into the atmosphere through combustion, breathing, fermentation, etc.. and removed from the atmosphere by plants that use it for photosynthesis.

Unfortunately plants don’t remove it permanently. They burn, rot, decay… even shedding foliage releases carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere. THAT is pseudoscience. The idea that planting more plants.. or that there would be more plants because of higher CO2 and they would lower the CO2 is absurd. Or that Canada doesn’t need to do anything about CO2 because it has the boreal forests.. which also emit as much CO2 as they remove.

This actually happened during the Carboniferous Period.. CO2 rich atmosphere.. much higher heat.. and lots and lots of plants that still didn’t remove that CO2. Like a bunch of teenagers at a party.. the beer cans are half empty and the rest is going to wind up on the ground one way or another.

Then a disaster happened and most of those plants were buried. They couldn’t release that carbon because it was under lava or sediment. And there it remained for hundreds of millions of years until we started digging and drilling for it and introducing into the atmosphere at industrial rates.

Reducing it to the absurd.. or more likely, late stage capitalism… if we burned the entirety of fossil fuels the world would resemble that of the Carboniferous Period and be completely uninhabitable by humans.

Carbon Capture—whatever form it takes—removes that carbon from the atmosphere and stores it in such a way that it is permanently removed from the carbon cycle. It could be building a house out of wood—provided it never burns down or rots. It could be atmospheric scrubbers that solidify it. Or pumping it into underground reservoirs to be sequestered. Whatever the method.. less atmospheric CO2 means less greenhouse gases and cooler temperatures.

It’s like the water cycle. Look at Antarctica. It’s the world’s largest desert.. yet has most of the world’s fresh water? How can that be? Because the water is frozen and has no way of entering the water cycle. Same thing.

[‘Bob’]

Oh yeah… and there’s only one kind of fertilizer that needs to be removed quickly…

25892DC3-D05D-4A7B-BFDF-76DE5B80440F.jpeg (1.59 MiB) Viewed 1346 times

[rookiepilot]

Quickly coming around to the view, Airlines are slow to hire, because consumer demand is going to absolutely fall off a cliff, soon, and they know it.

[7ECA]

And Carbon Capture, is greenwashed pseudo science at it's finest.

Uh.. no. Carbon capture is preventing more carbon from entering the carbon cycle.

I'm aware of what it is. The problem with this idea of massively upscaling current small scale carbon capture technology, is that it is unproven and also uses massive amounts of energy. It's all well and good to think of it as being a part of any larger plan to reduce carbon based emissions; but it's not in and of itself the solution.

And that's what I'm getting at, carbon capture, atmospheric scrubbers, cloud seeding, etc., etc., are all ideas that may, in concert with other ideas/technology and gadgetry may help to stop us from ending up as passengers as we careen down the road to oblivion. None of them singly will solve the problem. But, one thing that absolutely needs to happen, is drastic reductions in emissions, as well as a fairly drastic rethinking of the way our current economies rely upon largely carbon based systems.

To put it all more succinctly, if we don't reduce emissions markedly we're all fucked.

[7ECA]

Quickly coming around to the view, Airlines are slow to hire, because consumer demand is going to absolutely fall off a cliff, soon, and they know it.

Hey, you said we're gonna have $200/barrel oil "soon".

You know full well if something like that happened, no one's going to be doing much...

[rookiepilot]

Quickly coming around to the view, Airlines are slow to hire, because consumer demand is going to absolutely fall off a cliff, soon, and they know it.

Hey, you said we're gonna have $200/barrel oil "soon".

You know full well if something like that happened, no one's going to be doing much...

Where did I write “soon”?

Show me. I’d like to see my quote saying “soon”.

I suggest you re-read my answer to Bede when he asked that question.

A deep recession may or may not stop rising energy prices, in any event.

Both may well happen, as in the Natural Gas market now.

In other words. We are totally screwed.

I warned here at least a year ago, if not more: get your debt house in order, peeps. We are headed for a world of hurt.

The exact routing and waypoints might be changed of this scary flight, but we will end up in the same place.